Opinion
20-7467
07-15-2021
REGINALD U. FULLARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROY COOPER; KENNETH LASSITER, Director of Prisons; MR. FIELDS, JR., Asst. Supt. at Facility, Respondents - Appellees.
Reginald U. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 24, 2021
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)
Reginald U. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Reginald U. Fullard see ks 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