Edward Steedley v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999422365-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00485-GBL-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999461964]. Mailed to: Steedley. [14-7098]

Appeal: 14-7098

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7098

EDWARD STEEDLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, V.D.O.C.,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00485-GBL-JFA)

Submitted:

October 21, 2014

Decided:

October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Steedley, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7098

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Edward Steedley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and
he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2012).

See 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) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies
satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

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 Steedley has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Steedley’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-7098

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 10/24/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3