Court Opinion

ID: 4568149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:32:30.778514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:46:11.447019
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6149

PAULA MARIE BRADSHAW,

                    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. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00060-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: July 21, 2020                                          Decided: July 24, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paula Marie Bradshaw, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Paula Marie Bradshaw seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Bradshaw’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2018) petition. 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 could 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)).

       Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Bradshaw’s informal brief,

we conclude that Bradshaw has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see

also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved

in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

                                             2
      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

                                          3