McKenzie Hopkins v. Patricia Goins-Johnson, No. 16-7410 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7410 MCKENZIE HOPKINS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. PATRICIA GOINS-JOHNSON, Warden, Patuxent Institution, Jessup, Maryland; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Defendants – Appellees, and MARYLAND, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13-cv-03336-PWG) Submitted: February 9, 2017 Before KING and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. February 24, 2017 HAMILTON, Senior McKenzie Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: McKenzie Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2012). 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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hopkins has not made the requisite showing. deny Hopkins’ motion dismiss the appeal. counsel. legal for a certificate of Accordingly, we appealability and We also deny Hopkins’ motion to assign We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
