Dorek Hayes v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6669 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6669 DOREK EMANUEL HAYES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00380-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: July 29, 2014 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorek Emanuel Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dorek court s judge order and petition. or judge Emanuel adopting denying the seeks to appeal recommendation relief on his 28 of U.S.C. the the district magistrate § 2254 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue Hayes absent a constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. of 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a 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 Hayes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.
