Andrew Vaughn v. Harold Clarke


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00265-RBS-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999944466]. Mailed to: A Vaughn. [16-6184]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6184 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/11/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6184 ANDREW OBIE VAUGHN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00265-RBS-DEM) Submitted: October 4, 2016 Decided: October 11, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Obie Vaughn, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6184 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/11/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Andrew Obie Vaughn 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 of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 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 Vaughn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 Appeal: 16-6184 Doc: 9 adequately Filed: 10/11/2016 presented in the Pg: 3 of 3 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?