Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Keith Troxler v. Brian Wells, 15-7501 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-7501 Visitors: 49
Filed: Feb. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7501 KEITH TYRONE TROXLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRIAN WELLS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00592-TDS-JEP) Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 16, 2016 Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Tyrone Troxler, Appel
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7501


KEITH TYRONE TROXLER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

BRIAN WELLS,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00592-TDS-JEP)


Submitted:   January 29, 2016             Decided:   February 16, 2016


Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Keith Tyrone Troxler, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Keith Tyrone Troxler seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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)

(2012).     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) (2012).                  When the district court denies

relief    on    the    merits,    a   prisoner     satisfies       this   standard    by

demonstrating         that     reasonable       jurists    would     find   that     the

district       court’s      assessment   of     the    constitutional       claims    is

debatable      or     wrong.     Slack   v.      McDaniel,    
529 U.S. 473
,    484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
537 U.S. 322
, 336-38 (2003).

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.                      
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85
.

      We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Troxler has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                            2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer