Egbert Francis, Jr. v. Mary Locklear

Fourth Circuit

Egbert Francis, Jr. v. Mary Locklear

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 2025

Docket25-6163

StatusUnpublished

This text of Egbert Francis, Jr. v. Mary Locklear (Egbert Francis, Jr. v. Mary Locklear) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Egbert Francis, Jr. v. Mary Locklear, (4th Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6163 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6163

EGBERT FRANCIS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN MARY LOCKLEAR,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:24-hc-02142-FL)

Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 29, 2025

Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Egbert Francis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6163 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Egbert Francis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 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, as here, 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 Francis has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI