Joseph Hoover v. Butch Jackson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998868563-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998838674-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00168-WO-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998917201]. Mailed to: Joseph Hoover. [12-6695]

Appeal: 12-6695

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/16/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6695

JOSEPH EUGENE HOOVER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BUTCH JACKSON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cv-00168-WO-LPA)

Submitted:

August 10, 2012

Decided:

August 16, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Eugene Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.
Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6695

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/16/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joseph
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

Eugene

accepting

denying

the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the
the

§

district

magistrate

2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

Hoover

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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);

Cockrell,

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Hoover has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Hoover’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6695

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/16/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3