Donnell Walker v. Brian Frosh ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6068 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6068
DONNELL WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the State of Maryland; CLEVELAND
FRIDAY, Warden of Jessup Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00576-ELH)
Submitted: June 30, 2022 Decided: July 28, 2022
Before RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donnell Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6068 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Donnell Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s memorandum opinion and 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Walker 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
2