Harry James-El v. Eric Hooks
Harry James-El v. Eric Hooks
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6566 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6566
HARRY SHAROD JAMES-EL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC A. HOOKS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00934-LCB-JLW)
Submitted: April 15, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harry Sharod James-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6566 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Harry Sharod James-El appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing James-El’s
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. 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 James-El 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished