Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06881/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06881-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
John Thomas Pollard
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6881

JOHN THOMAS POLLARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:14-cv-00376-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: November 12, 2015

Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Thomas Pollard, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, 

Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6881 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/12/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Thomas Pollard seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders (1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies, and 

(2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. 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 

Pollard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

Appeal: 15-6881 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/12/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6881 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/12/2015 Pg: 3 of 3