William Swinson v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00100-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999661940]. Mailed to: William Boyd Swinson. [15-6546]

Appeal: 15-6546

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6546

WILLIAM BOYD SWINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00100-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

September 17, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Boyd Swinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Craig Stallard,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6546

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Boyd Swinson 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.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

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
Swinson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-6546

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 09/17/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3