Ozelia Hicks, Jr. v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [999895887-2], denying Motion to amend/correct [999895884-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999882891-2], denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999827783-2], denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999800292-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999877102-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999877101-2]; denying Motion to compel [999853492-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00123-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999902482]. Mailed to: Ozelia Hicks, Jr.. [16-6374]

Appeal: 16-6374

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6374

OZELIA HICKS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director

of

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Roderick Charles Young,
Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00123-RCY)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ozelia Hicks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Appellee.

Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF
Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6374

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ozelia Hicks, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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

of

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

judge

See

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”
magistrate

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

denies

relief

on

the

merits,

of

a

When the

a

prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would

find

that

the

magistrate

judge’s

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.

assessment

of

the

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003).

When the magistrate judge denies relief on

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the
dispositive
petition

procedural

states

a

constitutional right.

ruling

is

debatable

debatable,

claim

of

the

and

that

denial

of

the
a

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Hicks has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

*

In light

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2012).

2

Appeal: 16-6374

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

of this disposition, we deny Hicks’ motions for bail/release
pending

appeal,

relief.
legal
before

to

compel,

to

amend/correct,

and

for

other

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3