Odell Ewing v. Reuben Young, No. 12-7965 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7965 ODELL EWING, a/k/a Odell Lee Ewing Bey, Petitioner Appellant, v. SECRETARY REUBEN YOUNG, Respondent Appellee, and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-hc-02173-D) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 26, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam pinion. Odell Ewing, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Odell Ewing seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2006). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 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) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 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 Ewing has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificate Ewing s motion to compel, deny appealability, and dismiss the appeal. a of 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