Syron Rogers v. Harold Clarke , 606 F. App'x 90 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6231
    SYRON DEVON ROGERS,
    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.      Arenda L. Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (2:14-cv-00310-AWA-TEM)
    Submitted:   June 12, 2015                 Decided:   June 19, 2015
    Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Syron Devon Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Syron Devon Rogers 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 (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
    Rogers 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6231

Citation Numbers: 606 F. App'x 90

Filed Date: 6/19/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023