Bobby Grady v. Wayne County Clerk of Court, No. 13-6071 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6071 BOBBY RAY GRADY, Petitioner Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY CLERK OF COURT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-hc-02283-FL) Submitted: May 23, 2013 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 29, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Ray Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Ray Grady seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief without prejudice on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his petition for a writ of mandamus. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2006). of appealability. 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating district that court s debatable or reasonable assessment wrong. Slack jurists would of the v. McDaniel, find constitutional 529 U.S. 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 Grady has not made the requisite showing. We find further that the relief Grady seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 2 and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
