Curtis v. Hooks

Full title: DONALD LEE CURTIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Respondent …

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 23, 2019

No. 19-6398 (4th Cir. Jul. 23, 2019)

Opinion

No. 19-6398

07-23-2019

DONALD LEE CURTIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Respondent - Appellee.

Donald Lee Curtis, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01101-CCE-JEP) Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lee Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Donald Lee Curtis seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Curtis' motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to assign counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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