Jessiah James Hubbard v. State of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --