Hilton v. Warden, Broad River Corr. Inst.

Full title: GUSSIE HENRY HILTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Feb 24, 2023

No. 22-7382 (4th Cir. Feb. 24, 2023)

Opinion

22-7382

02-24-2023

GUSSIE HENRY HILTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee.

Gussie Henry Hilton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: February 21, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (0:21-cv-03646-JD)

Gussie Henry Hilton, Jr., 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Gussie Henry Hilton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hilton'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, 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 Hilton 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