Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07599/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Antrum
Appellant
James Arthur DeVita
Appellee
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee
Elizabeth Ann LaGier
Appellee
Bryan Waldron
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7599

DOUGLAS ANTRUM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections; BRYAN WALDRON; ELIZABETH ANN LAGIER; JAMES 

ARTHUR DEVITA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:07-cv-00552-JBF-JEB)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Douglas Antrum, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Bryan Waldron, 

Elizabeth Ann LaGier, James Arthur DeVita, BUTLER LEGAL GROUP, 

P.L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7599 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/29/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Antrum, a state prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion 

for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of 

sanctions for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Antrum v. Johnson, No. 2:07-cv-00552-JBF-JEB (E.D. Va. filed 

July 30, 2009 & entered July 31, 2009).

The district court also denied relief on Antrum’s Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the prior denial of his 

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006). That portion of the 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). 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) (2006). 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 

Appeal: 09-7599 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/29/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Antrum has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the portion of the appeal denying 

Antrum’s Rule 60(b) motion relating to the prior denial of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 09-7599 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/29/2010 Pg: 3 of 3