Reginald Hardy v. Harold Clarke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999534543-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999522477-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999534539-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999534538-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00748-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999609928]. Mailed to: R. Hardy. [15-6141]
Appeal: 15-6141
Doc: 11
Filed: 06/26/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6141
REGINALD HARDY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Corrections,
Director
of
Virginia
Department
of
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00748-HEH-RCY)
Submitted:
June 15, 2015
Decided:
June 26, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Hardy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6141
Doc: 11
Filed: 06/26/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Hardy seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
not
appealable
unless
a
circuit
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
justice
or
The order is
judge
issues
a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
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
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
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
Hardy has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
the motions for a certificate of appealability and appointment
of counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss
the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2
Appeal: 15-6141
Doc: 11
Filed: 06/26/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?