Najarred Walker v. Frank Bishop ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-7138      Doc: 8        Filed: 11/21/2024     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-7138
    NAJARRED T. WALKER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN FRANK B. BISHOP; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:20-cv-01076-TDC)
    Submitted: August 29, 2024                                  Decided: November 21, 2024
    Before NIEMEYER, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Najarred T. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-7138         Doc: 8      Filed: 11/21/2024     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Najarred Theodore Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
    on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
    prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
    district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
    Davis, 
    580 U.S. 100
    , 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker 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 contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-7138

Filed Date: 11/21/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/25/2024