Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06141/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Reginald Hardy
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6141

REGINALD HARDY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-00748-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: June 15, 2015 Decided: June 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Hardy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6141 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Hardy seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 

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

the motions for a certificate of appealability and appointment 

of counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

Appeal: 15-6141 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6141 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/26/2015 Pg: 3 of 3