Case Name: Bernard Ray RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-14
Citations: 615 F. App'x 823
Docket Number: No. 15-6699
Parties: Bernard Ray RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 823–823

Head Matter:
Bernard Ray RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6699.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 9, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 14, 2015.
Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER'CURIAM:
Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Richardson's motion for 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.