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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?