Bernard Richardson v. Harold Clarke, No. 15-6699 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6699 BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:14-cv-00550-EKD) Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his reconsideration. justice or judge Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for The orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of appealability. 28 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) (2012). 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 Richardson has not made the requisite showing. deny Richardson’s motion for a certificate Accordingly, we of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and 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.