Jonathan Elwood Walker, Sr. v. Joseph B. Hall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6052
JONATHAN ELWOOD WALKER, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH B. HALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-00128-LPA)
Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Elwood Walker, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Clarence
Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Elwood Walker, Sr., seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order 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. See 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
Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Walker’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave
* This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the
parties’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We deny
Walker’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

-- 3 of 3 --