Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06566/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06566-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyare Riddick
Appellant
D. Robinson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6566

TYARE RIDDICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

D. ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:05-cv-01007-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyare Riddick, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lee Parrish, BOWEN, 

CHAMPLIN, CARR FOREMAN & ROCKECHARLIE, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6566 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyare Riddick seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

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 

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

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

conclude that Riddick has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

Appeal: 10-6566 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6566 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 3 of 3