Stephen Mitchell v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999300961-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00140-RBS-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999386894].. [14-6111]

Appeal: 14-6111

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6111

STEPHEN SCOTT MITCHELL,
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.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00140-RBS-LRL)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY,

Decided:

July 1, 2014

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Scott Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
Virginia, for Appellee.

Robert H. Anderson,
VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6111

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stephen Scott Mitchell seeks to appeal the district
court’s
judge

order
and

denying

petition.
or

judge

accepting

relief

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the
§

magistrate

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

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 Mitchell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Mitchell’s motion
to

proceed

dispense

in

with

forma

pauperis,

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because
2

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-6111

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 07/01/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3