Message
×
loading..

Ronald Riddick v. Harold Clarke , 576 F. App'x 250 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-6246
    RONALD DEANGELO RIDDICK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD   W.  CLARKE,    Director,    Virginia   Department   of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:13-cv-00424-GBL-TCB)
    Submitted:   June 24, 2014                 Decided:   June 26, 2014
    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald DeAngelo Riddick, Appellant Pro Se.      David Michael
    Uberman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald DeAngelo Riddick seeks to appeal 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.                           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 Riddick has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly,
    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
    We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with
    oral    argument     because    the    facts       and    legal       contentions        are
    2
    adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-6246

Citation Numbers: 576 F. App'x 250

Judges: Wilkinson, Duncan, Thacker

Filed Date: 6/26/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024