Bernard Richardson v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999590007-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999589994-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00550-EKD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999659055]. Mailed to: Bernard Richardson. [15-6699]

Appeal: 15-6699

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6699

BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Elizabeth Kay Dillon,
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00550-EKD)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6699

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
and

denying

his

reconsideration.
justice

or

judge

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

59(e)

motion

for

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

of

appealability.

28

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).

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
Richardson has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Richardson’s

motion

for

a

certificate

Accordingly, we

of

appealability,

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument
2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 15-6699

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 09/14/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3