Donnell Hurt v. Larry Edmond

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999195339-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999190414-2]; denying certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01147-LO-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999270992]. Mailed to: Donnell Hurt. [13-7318]

Appeal: 13-7318

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/06/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7318

DONNELL HURT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:12-cv-01147-LO-JFA)

Submitted:

December 20, 2013

Decided:

January 6, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnell Hurt, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7318

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/06/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Donnell

Hurt

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(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 Hurt has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny 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

2

Appeal: 13-7318

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/06/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3