Court Opinion

ID: 621252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-01-20 19:37:54+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:55.876965
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-7116

JERMAINE M. SPRUILL,

                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. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00618-RAJ-FBS)

Submitted:   January 13, 2012             Decided:   January 20, 2012

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine M. Spruill, Appellant Pro        Se.    Josephine Frances
Whalen, Assistant Attorney General,       Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Jermaine        M.    Spruill       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 Spruill 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

                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3