Marcus Dixon v. Harold Clark, No. 13-7591 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7591 MARCUS LE SHAWN DIXON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARK, Dir., D.O.C. of VA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00429-JRS) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: March 31, 2014 and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Le Shawn Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus court s order petition. Le Shawn denying Dixon relief seeks on to his 28 appeal U.S.C. district § 2254 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue the absent a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Dixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dixon s motion to amend his petition, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the 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.
