Donna J. Hockman v. Phyllis Baskerville
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000025067-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000018907-2] Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00240-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Hockman. [17-6027]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DONNA J. HOCKMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
March 30, 2017
April 4, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donna J. Hockman, Appellant Pro Se.
Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
Richmond, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Donna J. Hockman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
§ 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d
363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
A certificate of appealability will
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Hockman has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral
Pg: 3 of 3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?