John Pollard v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied (FRAP 24) [999615084-2], certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00376-RBS-TEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999697536]. Mailed to: John Pollard. [15-6881]

Appeal: 15-6881

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/12/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6881

JOHN THOMAS POLLARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00376-RBS-TEM)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

November 12, 2015

Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Thomas Pollard, Appellant Pro Se.
James Milburn Isaacs,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6881

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/12/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Thomas Pollard seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders (1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies, and
(2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment.

The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

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
Pollard has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
2

Appeal: 15-6881

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/12/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3