Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06205/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Alexander Breaux
Appellant
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6205

STEVEN ALEXANDER BREAUX,

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. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:14-cv-00246-MSD-TEM)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Alexander Breaux, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings 

Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6205 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM:

Steven Alexander Breaux seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing as untimely 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 

Breaux has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

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 contentions are adequately 

2

Appeal: 15-6205 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

3

Appeal: 15-6205 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3