Reginald Fullard v. Frank Perry ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6891
    REGINALD FULLARD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    FRANK PERRY,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.     Loretta Copeland
    Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00251-LCB-JLW)
    Submitted:   October 15, 2015              Decided:   October 20, 2015
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Reginald Fullard, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald Fullard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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.               
    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
    Fullard has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                              We
    dispense       with    oral      argument      because     the        facts    and     legal
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6891

Judges: Wilkinson, Agee, Harris

Filed Date: 10/20/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024