UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7467
REGINALD U. FULLARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROY COOPER; KENNETH LASSITER, Director of Prisons; MR. FIELDS, JR.,
Asst. Supt. at Facility,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01085-LCB-JLW)
Submitted: June 24, 2021 Decided: July 15, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald U. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald U. Fullard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Fullard’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74
(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.
134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fullard has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Fullard’s motions entitled “petition-motion per 28 U.S.C. § 2242” and
“motion for relief from constitutional error” and 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
2