Hunter Potts v. Christopher Fowler

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6878 Doc: 23 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6878

HUNTER KEITH POTTS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER FOWLER; SHERIFF BRIAN CHISM, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:24-hc-02240-M)

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hunter Keith Potts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6878 Doc: 23 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Hunter Keith Potts, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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).

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 Potts 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

* We grant Potts’s motion to extend the time to file his informal brief and accept his informal brief and supplemental informal brief as timely filed. We also grant Potts’s motion to seal two paragraphs of his supplemental informal brief based on the sensitive information contained therein. We deny Potts’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6878 Doc: 23 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 3 of 3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED