Mark Lowe v. Commonwealth of VA DOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed on original record [1000241816-2]; denying Motion for certificate of appealability [1000236534-2] Originating case number: 3:17-cv-00292-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000297673]. Mailed to: M. Lowe. [18-6090]

Download PDF
Appeal: 18-6090 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/21/2018 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6090 MARK MADISON LOWE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:17-cv-00292-RCY) Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 21, 2018 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Madison Lowe, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 18-6090 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/21/2018 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Mark Madison Lowe seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. * The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 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 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 Lowe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Lowe’s motion for leave to use the original record, deny Lowe’s motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 2 Appeal: 18-6090 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/21/2018 Pg: 3 of 3 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?