Maurice McKay v. State of Maryland
Maurice McKay v. State of Maryland
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6151
MAURICE ELIJAH MCKAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:18-cv-01956-TDC)
Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: May 3, 2021
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice McKay, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Maurice McKay seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis,
137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler,
565 U.S. 134, 140-41(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McKay has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny McKay’s
motion to request F.R.C. procedures under Rule 60(b)(4-6), (d)(1), 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished