David Stovall v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999115403-2]. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00495-AWA-TEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999161806]. Mailed to: David Stovall. [13-6610]

Appeal: 13-6610

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6610

DAVID STOVALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00495-AWA-TEM)

Submitted:

July 25, 2013

Decided:

July 30, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Stovall, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6610

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David

Stovall

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2006).

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) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. 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.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Stovall has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 13-6610

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3