Court Opinion

ID: 4413892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-07-03 19:00:19.92416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:50:46.313598
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-6240

ROBERT EARL SMITH,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

SUPERINTENDANT HACKWORTH,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01449-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: June 20, 2019                                          Decided: July 3, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Robert Earl Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Smith has not made

the requisite showing. Specifically, Smith’s failure to challenge in his informal brief the

district court’s finding that he has not yet exhausted his state court remedies forecloses

our consideration of that dispostitive ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v.

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

                                             2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                              DISMISSED

                                            3