Titus Batts v. Warden Oaks, No. 12-7812 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7812 TITUS LAMONT BATTS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OAKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:12-hc-02106-F) Submitted: February 22, 2013 Decided: March 8, 2013 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Titus Lamont Batts, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Titus court s order petition. or judge Lamont denying relief seeks on to appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 his district (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue Batts absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Batts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Batts motions to appoint counsel, for a certificate of appealability, and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 2 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3