Kenneth Newkirk v. Director of DepÂ’t of Corrections, No. 15-7067 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7067 KENNETH H. NEWKIRK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00172-HEH-RCY) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth H. Newkirk seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 merits, demonstrating district 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 by that the claims is U.S. 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 Newkirk has not made the requisite showing. deny Newkirk’s motion for appointment of Accordingly, we counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 2 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 3
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.
