Murphy v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , 393 F. App'x 975 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6415
    DERRICK E. MURPHY,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:09-cv-00302-LO-TRJ)
    Submitted:   August 26, 2010             Decided:   September 2, 2010
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Derrick E. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Derrick E. Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order 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.             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    (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 Murphy 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
    2
    materials before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6415

Citation Numbers: 393 F. App'x 975

Judges: Duncan, Hamilton, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023