Court Opinion

ID: 4519850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-03-26 19:00:18.729392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:24.988036
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7441

MCRAE DEMETRICE RIDDICK,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

JIM O’SULLIVAN, Sheriff,

                    Respondent - Appellee,

             and

UNKNOWN; CHESAPEAKE CITY JAIL,

                           Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00094-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: March 16, 2020                                         Decided: March 26, 2020

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

McRae Demetrice Riddick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       McRae Demetrice Riddick seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.
759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       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 and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                              2