Edward Egan v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00039-MSD-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999497111]. Mailed to: Edward James Egan. [14-7414]

Appeal: 14-7414

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7414

EDWARD JAMES EGAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-00039-MSD-TEM)

Submitted:

December 16, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

December 19, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward James Egan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Aaron Jennings
Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7414

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Edward James Egan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

petition.
or

judge

as

successive

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

his

absent

“a

constitutional

of

appealability.

28 U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

right.”

28

showing
U.S.C.

of

the

denial

§ 2253(c)(2).

of

When

a
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 Egan has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Egan’s

motion

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

for

a

certificate

of

Accordingly, we

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 14-7414

Doc: 15

materials

before

Filed: 12/19/2014

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3