McKenzie Hopkins v. Patricia Goins-Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for a certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999953182-2]; denying Motion to assign counsel [999953183-2]. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-03336-PWG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000030028].. [16-7410]

Appeal: 16-7410

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/24/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7410

MCKENZIE HOPKINS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA
GOINS-JOHNSON,
Warden,
Patuxent
Institution,
Jessup, Maryland; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the
State of Maryland,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MARYLAND,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge.
(8:13-cv-03336-PWG)

Submitted:

February 9, 2017

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

February 24, 2017

HAMILTON,

Senior

Appeal: 16-7410

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/24/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

McKenzie Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7410

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/24/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
McKenzie Hopkins 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 of appealability.
(2012).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

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) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

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
Hopkins has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Hopkins’

motion

dismiss the appeal.
counsel.
legal

for

a

certificate

of

Accordingly, we
appealability

and

We also deny Hopkins’ motion to assign

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately
3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 16-7410

before

Doc: 7

this

Filed: 02/24/2017

court

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

4