Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr. v. George M. Hinkle

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6549
CURTIS LEON TAYLOR, SR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GEORGE M. HINKLE,
Respondent – Appellee.
No. 10-6657
CURTIS LEON TAYLOR, SR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GEORGE M. HINKLE,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:08-cv-00306-MHL)
Submitted: June 9, 2010 Decided: July 9, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Bland Curwood,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr. seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition and denying reconsideration.*
* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by
the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Taylor’s motion for de novo review, and dismiss the appeals. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --