Robert Henson v. Harold Clarke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999719186-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00173-CMH-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999766177]. Mailed to: R. Henson. [15-7831]
Appeal: 15-7831
Doc: 9
Filed: 03/02/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7831
ROBERT HENSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00173-CMH-TCB)
Submitted:
February 25, 2016
Decided:
March 2, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Henson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7831
Doc: 9
Filed: 03/02/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Robert Henson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the district court’s order 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 of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue
absent
“a
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C.
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
of
a
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
(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
Henson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2
Appeal: 15-7831
Doc: 9
Filed: 03/02/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
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?