Marcus Dixon v. Harold Clarke ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6812
MARCUS LE’SHAWN DIXON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir., D.O.C. of VA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00429-MHL)
Submitted: November 30, 2018 Decided: December 7, 2018
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order 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); Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part by United States v.
McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Dixon has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny Dixon’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral 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
2