Michael Grafmuller v. Harold Clarke, No. 12-7454 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7454 MICHAEL P. GRAFMULLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia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. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (2:12-cv-00052-TEM) Submitted: January 31, 2013 Decided: February 8, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael P. Grafmuller, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael P. Grafmuller seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s order petition. * or denying relief his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue on absent a magistrate judge appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). denies relief on the merits, a of a When the prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the magistrate judge 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 right. denial of a constitutional Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grafmuller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave * The parties consented to the jurisdiction magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 of the to proceed dispense in with contentions are forma pauperis, oral argument adequately and dismiss because presented in the the the appeal. facts We and legal materials before this 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.
