Robert Smith v. Superintendant Hackworth, No. 19-6240 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6240 ROBERT EARL SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDANT HACKWORTH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01449-CMH-JFA) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: July 3, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Earl Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Earl Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Specifically, Smith’s failure to challenge in his informal brief the district court’s finding that he has not yet exhausted his state court remedies forecloses our consideration of that dispostitive ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 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.
