Hunter Keith Potts v. Captain Christopher Fowler; Sheriff Brian Chism

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6878
HUNTER KEITH POTTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER FOWLER; SHERIFF BRIAN CHISM,
Respondents - Appellees.
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-02240-M)
Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026
Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hunter Keith Potts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Hunter Keith Potts, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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).
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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Potts 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
* We grant Potts’s motion to extend the time to file his informal brief and accept his
informal brief and supplemental informal brief as timely filed. We also grant Potts’s
motion to seal two paragraphs of his supplemental informal brief based on the sensitive
information contained therein. We deny Potts’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --