From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. Virginia Dept. Corr

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Sep 7, 2010
395 F. App'x 4 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

NO. 10-6835.

Submitted: August 26, 2010.

Decided: September 7, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00514-REP).

Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Richardson v. Virginia Dept. Corr

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Sep 7, 2010
395 F. App'x 4 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Richardson v. Virginia Dept. Corr

Case Details

Full title:Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Sep 7, 2010

Citations

395 F. App'x 4 (4th Cir. 2010)