Griffin v. Clarke

Full title: TYRONE L. GRIFFIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 26, 2018

No. 18-6209 (4th Cir. Jul. 26, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-6209

07-26-2018

TYRONE L. GRIFFIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Tyrone L. Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00348-RAJ-DEM) Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone L. Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Tyrone L. Griffin seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Griffin 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