Corey Woodson v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999273613-2] Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00507-MSD-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999304549]. Mailed to: Corey Raynard Woodson. [13-7786]

Appeal: 13-7786

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7786

COREY RAYNARD WOODSON,
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.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00507-MSD-LRL)

Submitted:

February 20, 2014

Decided:

February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Raynard Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.
Katherine Quinlan
Adelfio, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7786

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Corey
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

Raynard
accepting

denying

the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the

the
§

district

magistrate

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

Woodson

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) (2012).

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 Woodson 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: 13-7786

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/26/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3