Adams v. Clarke

Full title: KENYATTA H. ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Feb 23, 2023

No. 22-6839 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2023)

Opinion

22-6839

02-23-2023

KENYATTA H. ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.

Kenyatta Hasani Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: February 21, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert John Krask, Magistrate Judge. (2:21-cv-00553-RJK)

Kenyatta Hasani Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenyatta Hasani Adams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and a subsequent order denying reconsideration.^[*] The orders are 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 Adams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Adams' motion to supplement his informal brief. 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

[*] The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to § 28 U.S.C. 636(c).