Michael Allen Bullock v. Erik A. Hooks

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6182

MICHAEL ALLEN BULLOCK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIK A. HOOKS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01092-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Allen Bullock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Bullock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) 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) (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). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Bullock has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny Bullock’s motions for appointment of counsel and
transcripts, 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