J. K. Crangle v. Government of West Virginia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6454
J. K. CRANGLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
TARA ROSE, fiancée and wife,
Petitioner,
v.
GOVERNMENT OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cv-00142-FPS-JES)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. K. Crangle, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
J.K. Crangle, who at all times relevant to the
underlying proceedings was a pretrial detainee at the Eastern
Regional Jail in West Virginia, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
construe Crangle’s federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2012) and to dismiss it for failure to exhaust his state
court remedies. 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 Crangle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny Crangle’s request for the appointment of
counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We 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

-- 3 of 3 --