Bernard Richardson v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsBernard Richardson v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6699
BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Elizabeth Kay Dillon,
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00550-EKD)
Submitted:
September 9, 2015
Decided:
September 14, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district courts
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition
and
denying
his
reconsideration.
justice
or
judge
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
59(e)
motion
for
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
issues
certificate
U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
of
appealability.
28
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 courts assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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
Richardson has not made the requisite showing.
deny
Richardsons
motion
for
certificate
Accordingly, we
of
appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
2
because
the
facts
and
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
