Justin H. Belnavis v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00399-JAG-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032019]. Mailed to: Justin H. Belnavis. [16-7295]

Appeal: 16-7295

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7295

JUSTIN H. BELNAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00399-JAG-RCY)

Submitted:

February 17, 2017

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

KEENAN

and

February 28, 2017

HARRIS,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin H. Belnavis, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7295

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Justin H. Belnavis 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

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

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) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies
satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

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
Belnavis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-7295

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 02/28/2017

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3