Simaron Hill v. Todd Ishee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 22, 2024
• Docket: 24-6810
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6810 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6810

SIMARON D. HILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TODD ISHEE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-00413-WO-JLW)

Submitted: November 4, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simaron D. Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6810 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Simaron D. Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Hill’s 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); 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). 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 Hill has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hill’s motion

to expedite as moot, 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