Ralph Taylor, Jr. v. Harold Clarke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Ralph Taylor. [16-7117]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RALPH TAYLOR, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
December 20, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Ralph Taylor, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
certificate of appealability.
The orders are not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(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.
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
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.
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?