Hugo Jones v. Harold Clarke , 588 F. App'x 241 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7190
    HUGO ROMARE JONES,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE,      Director    of    Virginia   Department     of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Arenda L. Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (2:13-cv-00384-AWA-TEM)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2014               Decided:   December 19, 2014
    Before DUNCAN    and   DIAZ,   Circuit    Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Hugo Romare Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Hugo Romare Jones 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        of    appealability.           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 Jones has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7190

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 241

Judges: Duncan, Diaz, Davis

Filed Date: 12/19/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024