Michael Orlando Cook v. George T. Solomon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6740
MICHAEL ORLANDO COOK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE T. SOLOMON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02104-FL)
Submitted: October 19, 2017 Decided: October 24, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael O. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Orlando Cook seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment
dismissing as untimely 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 Cook has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny Cook’s motion for 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

-- 2 of 2 --