# Joe Brown, Jr. v. Dennis Daniels

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 27, 2013 · 540 F. App'x 197

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042383

## Case

- **Full name:** Joe Louis BROWN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis DANIELS, Respondent-Appellee, and Robert Lewis, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 27, 2013
- **Citations:** 540 F. App'x 197
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Thacker, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042383

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6795

JOE LOUIS BROWN, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

DENNIS DANIELS,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

ROBERT LEWIS,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02145-BO)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Louis Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Joe Louis Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

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) (2006). 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 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042383. Public record. Not legal advice.