Dwayne Dumont Haizlip v. Joseph Valliere, Supt.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6318
DWAYNE DUMONT HAIZLIP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH VALLIERE, SUPT.,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00187-TDS-LPA)
Submitted: July 17, 2019 Decided: August 6, 2019
Before FLOYD, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne D. Haizlip, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Dumont Haizlip seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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 Haizlip 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 grant Haizlip’s motion for leave to
file a supplemental informal brief and 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

-- 2 of 2 --