Court Opinion

ID: 4703916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-15 19:02:51.079668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:52.845045
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7467

REGINALD U. FULLARD,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

ROY COOPER; KENNETH LASSITER, Director of Prisons; MR. FIELDS, JR.,
Asst. Supt. at Facility,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01085-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: June 24, 2021                                          Decided: July 15, 2021

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald U. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Reginald U. Fullard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Fullard’s 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 Fullard has not made

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

appeal. We deny Fullard’s motions entitled “petition-motion per 28 U.S.C. § 2242” and

“motion for relief from constitutional error” and 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