Categories: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

CHATMAN v. DIR., VIRGINIA DEP. OF CORR., 398 Fed.Appx. 924 (4th Cir. 2010)

Rashad Montrell CHATMAN, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6645.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: October 14, 2010.
Decided: October 21, 2010.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00465-RBS-TEM).

Rashad Montrell Chatman, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Page 925

PER CURIAM:

Rashad Montrell Chatman seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting in part 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) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chatman 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.