Robert Dougherty v. Samuel Pruett , 585 F. App'x 97 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7201
ROBERT W. DOUGHERTY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL V. PRUETT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00058-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Dougherty, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert W. Dougherty 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. See 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 Dougherty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Dougherty’s motion for a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Dougherty’s motion to
compel production of documents. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3