Court Opinion

ID: 2795422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-21 19:01:07.820293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:35.779475
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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).

                                             2
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

                                       3