Wilder v. New Hanover Cnty. Superior & Dist. Court

Full title: LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NEW HANOVER COUNTY…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jun 26, 2023

No. 22-7038 (4th Cir. Jun. 26, 2023)

Opinion

22-7038

06-26-2023

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NEW HANOVER COUNTY SUPERIOR AND DISTRICT COURT; MAJOR D. H. PRICE, Administrator NHC Jail; SECRETARY OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondents - Appellees.

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: June 22, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-hc-02001-M)

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Verline Wilder seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Wilder 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.