From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bolling v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 19, 2018
No. 18-6164 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-6164

06-19-2018

CHRISTOPHER SHAWN BOLLING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Christopher Shawn Bolling, Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:17-cv-00298-GEC-RSB) Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Shawn Bolling, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Christopher Shawn Bolling seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 Bolling 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

Bolling v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 19, 2018
No. 18-6164 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)
Case details for

Bolling v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER SHAWN BOLLING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 19, 2018

Citations

No. 18-6164 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)