PULLEN v. JOYNER (2019)

Chavis Odell Pullen appeals the district court's order dismissing Pullen's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute, and the district court's order denying Pullen's postjudgment motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.^* Pullen v. Joyner, No. 6:18-cv-03426-HMH (D.S.C. Jan. 17 & Feb. 11, 2019). 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.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Although a certificate of appealability generally is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012), we conclude that none is required here because the district court's dismissal for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute is unrelated to the merits of the § 2254 petition. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 182-83, 129 S.Ct. 1481, 173 L.Ed.2d 347 (2009).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.