UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7599
DOUGLAS ANTRUM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections; BRYAN WALDRON; ELIZABETH ANN LAGIER; JAMES
ARTHUR DEVITA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00552-JBF-JEB)
Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Douglas Antrum, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Bryan Waldron,
Elizabeth Ann LaGier, James Arthur DeVita, BUTLER LEGAL GROUP,
P.L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Antrum, a state prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion
for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
sanctions for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Antrum v. Johnson, No. 2:07-cv-00552-JBF-JEB (E.D. Va. filed
July 30, 2009 & entered July 31, 2009).
The district court also denied relief on Antrum’s Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the prior denial of his
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006). That portion of 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
2
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Antrum has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we dismiss the portion of the appeal denying
Antrum’s Rule 60(b) motion relating to the prior denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3