Court Opinion

ID: 4213071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-19 19:01:06.603327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:42.365270
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6327

CURTIS J. HARDY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

JENNIFER SAAD,

                    Respondent - Appellee,

             and

CHARLES WILLIAMS,

                    Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00086-GMG-JES)

Submitted: October 17, 2017                                   Decided: October 19, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis J. Hardy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Curtis J. Hardy, a federal inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2012) petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing the motion for lack

of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.    28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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

motion 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 Hardy 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