Court Opinion

ID: 4197602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-08-21 19:01:05.357537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:30.473903
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                        No. 17-6505

VALERIE K. SMITH,

             Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00428-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: August 11, 2017                                        Decided: August 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Valerie K. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher P. Schandevel, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Valerie K. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 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 Smith has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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

                                             2