Henderson v. Johnson , 203 F. App'x 521 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6678
    THOMAS ROY HENDERSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:05-cv-00639-RAJ)
    Submitted: October 17, 2006                 Decided: October 19, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Roy Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Deana A. Malek, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Roy Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.               The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.        
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).          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)   (2000).   A   prisoner   satisfies      this   standard    by
    demonstrating    that   reasonable     jurists   would     find   that     any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.        Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henderson has
    not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability and dismiss the appeal.         We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6678

Citation Numbers: 203 F. App'x 521

Judges: Niemeyer, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 10/19/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024