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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Omar Richards v. George Hinkle Doc. 0 Case: 10-6057 Document: 17 Date Filed: 03/01/2011 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6057 OMAR CASSIMER RICHARDS, Petitioner Appellant, v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Corr.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?