UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6699
BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon,
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00550-EKD)
Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration. The orders are 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
Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Richardson’s motion for a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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