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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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