Filed: Jun. 02, 2020
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6148 JOE LEE FULGHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00432-AWA-DEM) Submitted: May 28, 2020 Decided: June 2, 2020 Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Lee Fulgham, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6148 JOE LEE FULGHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00432-AWA-DEM) Submitted: May 28, 2020 Decided: June 2, 2020 Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Lee Fulgham, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6148
JOE LEE FULGHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00432-AWA-DEM)
Submitted: May 28, 2020 Decided: June 2, 2020
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Lee Fulgham seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Fulgham’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2018) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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)
(2018). 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) (2018). Because the district court
denied relief on procedural grounds, Fulgham 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 Fulgham has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Fulgham’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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