Simaron Hill v. Todd Ishee ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 24-6810      Doc: 13         Filed: 11/22/2024    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 24-6810
    SIMARON D. HILL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    TODD ISHEE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-00413-WO-JLW)
    Submitted: November 4, 2024                                 Decided: November 22, 2024
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Simaron D. Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 24-6810      Doc: 13         Filed: 11/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Simaron D. Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Hill’s 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition
    as an unauthorized, successive § 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); Jones
    v. Braxton, 
    392 F.3d 683
    , 688 (4th Cir. 2004). 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, as here, 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 Hill has not made the
    requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hill’s motion
    to expedite as moot, 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: 24-6810

Filed Date: 11/22/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/26/2024