McKenzie Hopkins v. Patricia Goins-Johnson , 678 F. App'x 94 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7410
MCKENZIE HOPKINS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA GOINS-JOHNSON, Warden, Patuxent Institution,
Jessup, Maryland; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the
State of Maryland,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MARYLAND,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge.
(8:13-cv-03336-PWG)
Submitted: February 9, 2017 Decided: February 24, 2017
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
McKenzie Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
McKenzie Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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)
(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
Hopkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Hopkins’ motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hopkins’ motion to assign
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4