Omar Richards v. George Hinkle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00432-AJT-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998534661] [10-6057]

Omar Richards v. George Hinkle

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6057

Document: 17

Date Filed: 03/01/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6057

OMAR CASSIMER RICHARDS, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Corr. Center, Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00432-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted:

February 10, 2011

Decided:

March 1, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Omar Cassimer Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6057

Document: 17

Date Filed: 03/01/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Omar Cassimer Richards seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C.

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, Slack,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with are oral argument because the in facts the and legal

contentions

adequately

presented

materials

2

Case: 10-6057

Document: 17

Date Filed: 03/01/2011

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3