From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bagby v. Edmonds

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jan 21, 2015
589 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-7372

01-21-2015

CHARLES EDWARD BAGBY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LARRY T. EDMONDS, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center; PATRICK GURNEY, Acting Warden, Haynesville Correctional Center, Respondents - Appellees.

Charles Edward Bagby, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00470-JAG) Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Edward Bagby, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Bagby 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. 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 Bagby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bagby's motion to file amended pleadings, 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

Bagby v. Edmonds

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jan 21, 2015
589 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Bagby v. Edmonds

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES EDWARD BAGBY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LARRY T. EDMONDS, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 21, 2015

Citations

589 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2015)