Vickers v. Johnson ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6699
ERIC ALLEN VICKERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:05-cv-00147)
Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 30, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Allen Vickers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Allen Vickers seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on 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 Vickers 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
*
In his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, Vickers objected only to the recommendation
regarding his claims D, G, H, I(1), and E. By failing to object to
the recommendation regarding his remaining claims, despite a
specific warning of the consequences of failure to object, he has
waived appellate review of the denial of relief on those claims.
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -