William Kimble v. Erik Hooks ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-7180
    WILLIAM KIMBLE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ERIK A. HOOKS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00746-LCB-JEP)
    Submitted: February 26, 2019                                      Decided: March 1, 2019
    Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Kimble, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William Kimble 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 Kimble has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Kimble’s motion for a certificate of
    appealability 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-7180

Filed Date: 3/1/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021