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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: A Vaughn. [16-6184]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW OBIE VAUGHN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
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)
October 4, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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.”
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.
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
Pg: 3 of 3
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?