Jermaine Spruill v. Harold Clarke , 462 F. App'x 356 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7116
    JERMAINE M. SPRUILL,
    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. (2:10-cv-00618-RAJ-FBS)
    Submitted:   January 13, 2012             Decided:   January 20, 2012
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jermaine M. Spruill, Appellant Pro        Se.    Josephine Frances
    Whalen, Assistant Attorney General,       Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jermaine        M.    Spruill       seeks       to    appeal         the     district
    court’s    order     accepting        the    recommendation              of    the       magistrate
    judge    and     denying       relief    on    his       
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
          (2006)
    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) (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    (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 Spruill has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7116

Citation Numbers: 462 F. App'x 356

Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023