Jessiah Hubbard v. State of North Carolina

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7100 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7100 JESSIAH JAMES HUBBARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:24-hc-02011-M) Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025 Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessiah James Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7100 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jessiah James Hubbard seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying as moot numerous nondispositive motions. ∗ 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 motion 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)). In his informal brief on appeal, Hubbard does not challenge the reasons on which the district court based its decision to dismiss the § 2254 petition. Hubbard therefore has forfeited appellate review of those grounds. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”). Regarding Hubbard’s challenge on appeal to the district court’s denial of his motions to recuse, for an ∗ Because the district court did not provide Hubbard leave to amend, the judgment is final. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7100 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 injunction, and to disclose evidence, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hubbard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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