Curtis Ray Brooks v. Harold Clarke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999926255-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00976-LMB-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Brooks. [16-7121]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CURTIS RAY BROOKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00976-LMB-IDD)
February 23, 2017
February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Ray Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
order dismissing as successive and unauthorized his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
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
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
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
Brooks has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
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?