Edward Bragg v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999176050-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999176052-2]. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00161-RAJ-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999239856]. Mailed to: Edward Bragg. [13-7193]

Appeal: 13-7193

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/14/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7193

EDWARD LEBRON BRAGG,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD
W.
CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director,

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00161-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted:

November 1, 2013

Decided:

November 14, 2013

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Lebron Bragg, Appellant Pro Se.
John Michael Parsons,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7193

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/14/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Edward
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

Lebron

accepting

denying

the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the
the
§

district
magistrate

2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

Bragg

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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.

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 Bragg has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny Bragg’s motion for appointment of counsel
and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because
2

Appeal: 13-7193

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/14/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3