Gregory Richardson v. VDOC, No. 10-6835 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6835 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; WARDEN OF SUSSEX I STATE PRISON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00514-REP) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and appealable motion unless certificate (2006). his of a to reconsider. circuit The justice appealability. or 28 See orders judge U.S.C. are issues not a § 2253(c)(1) 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). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 the 484-85. We have independently reviewed record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. for a certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
