Opinion
No. 19-7184
04-09-2020
BOBBY DEONTRAY WYCHE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN LEE PULLEY, Administrator of Nash Correctional Institution, Nashville, North Carolina, Respondent - Appellee.
Kevin P. Bradley, I, KEVIN P. BRADLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01014-LCB-JLW) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin P. Bradley, I, KEVIN P. BRADLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Bobby Deontray Wyche seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Wyche's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wyche has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wyche's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED