Russell Wood v. Harold Clarke

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6331
RUSSELL DAVID WOOD,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00169-RBS-LRL)
Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell David Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Russell David Wood seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely 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
Wood 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
2
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
3