Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06374/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06374-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6374

OZELIA HICKS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, 

Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00123-RCY)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ozelia Hicks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6374 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ozelia Hicks, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 

magistrate judge denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the magistrate judge’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 magistrate judge 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 

Hicks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. In light

 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2012).

Appeal: 16-6374 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

of this disposition, we deny Hicks’ motions for bail/release 

pending appeal, to compel, to amend/correct, and for other 

relief. 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

Appeal: 16-6374 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3