Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07094/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Don Wayne Elliott
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7094

DON WAYNE ELLIOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, D.O.C.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00630-LO-IDD)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 25, 2015

Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Wayne Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7094 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/25/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Don Wayne Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order 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 

Elliott 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 

Appeal: 15-7094 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/25/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7094 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/25/2015 Pg: 3 of 3