Crystal Gail Mangum v. Erik A. Hooks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7342
CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIK A. HOOKS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00978-LCB-JEP)
Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Crystal Gail Mangum, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Nicholaos George
Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Crystal Gail Mangum seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition. 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 Mangum has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mangum’s motion for release, deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

-- 2 of 2 --