Deon Bobbitt v. Leslie Cooley-Dismukes

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 25-6574
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6574 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6574

DEON PATRICK BOBBITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LESLIE COOLEY-DISMUKES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:24-hc-02103-BO)

Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 23, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deon Patrick Bobbitt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6574 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Deon Patrick Bobbitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bobbitt has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bobbitt’s motion for a certificate of

appealability 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