Reginald Fullard v. Frank Perry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00251-LCB-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999681566]. Mailed to: Reginald Fuller. [15-6891]

Appeal: 15-6891

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6891

REGINALD FULLARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Loretta Copeland
Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00251-LCB-JLW)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Fullard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6891

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Fullard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies
satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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
Fullard has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-6891

Doc: 17

contentions

are

Filed: 10/20/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3