Ralph Taylor, Jr. v. Harold Clarke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999920336-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00246-MSD-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999992962]. Mailed to: Ralph Taylor. [16-7117]
Appeal: 16-7117
Doc: 14
Filed: 12/22/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7117
RALPH TAYLOR, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Corrections,
Director
of
the
Virginia
Department
of
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-00246-MSD-DEM)
Submitted:
December 20, 2016
Decided:
December 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ralph Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-7117
Doc: 14
Filed: 12/22/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Ralph Taylor, Jr., 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)
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
appealable
unless
a
circuit
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
justice
petition
and
The orders are not
or
judge
issues
a
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
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
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
Taylor has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,
and
dismiss
the
appeal.
2
We
dispense
with
oral
Appeal: 16-7117
Doc: 14
Filed: 12/22/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
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
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?