Marius Stafford v. Harold Clarke
Marius Stafford v. Harold Clarke
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6877
MARIUS H. STAFFORD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00348-RAJ-RJK)
Submitted: January 27, 2020 Decided: February 19, 2020
Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marius H. Stafford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Marius H. Stafford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254(2018)
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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Stafford has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stafford’s 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished