Joseph Hoover v. Butch Jackson

475 F. App'x 912
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 16, 2012
Docket12-6695
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 475 F. App'x 912 (Joseph Hoover v. Butch Jackson) 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
Joseph Hoover v. Butch Jackson, 475 F. App'x 912 (4th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Eugene Hoover seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certifícate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hoover has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hoover’s motion for 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 the 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

Related

Gonzalez v. United States
Federal Claims, 2016
Ajamian v. United States
Federal Claims, 2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
475 F. App'x 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-hoover-v-butch-jackson-ca4-2012.