Tavon Hilton v. Department of Corrections

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000288625-2]. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 2:18-cv-00093-MSD-RJK. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000349977]. Mailed to: Tavon Hilton. [18-6405]

Appeal: 18-6405

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/16/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6405

TAVON HILTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00093-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: August 7, 2018

Decided: August 16, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tavon Hilton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6405

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/16/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tavon Hilton seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting in part the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Jones v. Braxton,
392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 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 Hilton has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2