Court Opinion

ID: 7639612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 21:00:35.036657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:25:23.569909
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6068      Doc: 13         Filed: 07/28/2022    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6068

        DONNELL WALKER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the State of Maryland; CLEVELAND
        FRIDAY, Warden of Jessup Correctional Institution,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00576-ELH)

        Submitted: June 30, 2022                                          Decided: July 28, 2022

        Before RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Donnell Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6068         Doc: 13       Filed: 07/28/2022     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Donnell Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s memorandum opinion and order

        denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 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). 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 the district court denies relief on the

        merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find

        the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. 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 Walker has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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