Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06052/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06052-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6052

JONATHAN ELWOOD WALKER, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH B. HALL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-00128-LPA)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Elwood Walker, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Clarence 

Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6052 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Elwood Walker, Sr., 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 

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 

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

Walker’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

 * This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the 

parties’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 

Appeal: 15-6052 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

Walker’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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: 15-6052 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3