Stephen Mitchell v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6111 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6111 STEPHEN SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director, Virginia Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00140-RBS-LRL) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Decided: July 1, 2014 Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Scott Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Virginia, for Appellee. Robert H. Anderson, VIRGINIA, Richmond, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen Scott Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court s judge order and denying petition. or judge accepting relief recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the § magistrate 2254 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue the absent a 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) (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 Mitchell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Mitchell s motion to proceed dispense in with forma pauperis, oral argument and dismiss because 2 the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately 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.
