Court Opinion

ID: 798784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-26 19:14:13+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:46.499293
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 12-6224

QUINTIN IRVING BROWN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ROY W. CHERRY, Superintendent; HOWARD W. CLARKE, Director,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:11-cv-00083-HCM-FBS)

Submitted:   April 19, 2012                 Decided:   April 26, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quintin Irving Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Quintin     Irving     Brown        seeks       to    appeal         the    district

court’s    order      accepting      the      recommendation              of    the    magistrate

judge    and     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)(A) (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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                                       Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Brown 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

                                               2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3