James Hawkins, Jr. v. Keith Davis, No. 16-6805 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6805 JAMES WILLIE HAWKINS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. KEITH W. DAVIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-00145-JRS) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Willie Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Willie Hawkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). not issue absent “a substantial constitutional right.” When prisoner the showing of the denial of a merits, a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). district court satisfies this jurists would reasonable A certificate of appealability will denies relief standard find by that on the demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Hawkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We 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.
