Ozelia Hicks, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, No. 16-6374 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6374 OZELIA HICKS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director of Virginia Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00123-RCY) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 2, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ozelia Hicks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Appellee. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ozelia Hicks, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent “a judge See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” magistrate appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). denies relief on the merits, of a When the a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the magistrate judge’s constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. assessment of the Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the magistrate judge denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive petition procedural states a constitutional right. ruling is debatable debatable, claim of the and that denial of the a Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hicks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * In light The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2012). 2 of this disposition, we deny Hicks’ motions for bail/release pending appeal, relief. legal before to compel, to amend/correct, and for other We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
