Jerrod Antonio Fuller v. Emily Faith Fuller

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7218
JERROD ANTONIO FULLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EMILY FAITH FULLER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02573-BAH)
Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerrod Antonio Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jerrod Antonio Fuller seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking review of state
court child custody and domestic relation orders and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion. The orders are 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 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)).
* Although Appellant petitioned for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he has not
established that he is in state custody.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fuller 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 of 3 --