Filed: Jul. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6726 RICHARD LEE HUNT, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID BALLARD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00029-GMG-JES) Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: July 9, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6726 RICHARD LEE HUNT, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID BALLARD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00029-GMG-JES) Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: July 9, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rich..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6726
RICHARD LEE HUNT, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00029-GMG-JES)
Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: July 9, 2018
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Lee Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Lee Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting in part the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hunt has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hunt’s motion for a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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