Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07566/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07566-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sid Harkleroad
Appellee
Michael Raymond Hawkins
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7566

MICHAEL RAYMOND HAWKINS, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

SID HARKLEROAD, 

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-00600-LPA) 

Submitted: April 27, 2015 Decided: June 4, 2015

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

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Gridley Pruden, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 14-7566 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/04/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Raymond Hawkins 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 

Hawkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

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

Appeal: 14-7566 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/04/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 14-7566 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/04/2015 Pg: 3 of 3