O'Handley v. Johnson , 196 F. App'x 222 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6583
    CHAD PATRICK O’HANDLEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
    of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:05-cv-00113-RBS)
    Submitted: August 24, 2006                 Decided: August 30, 2006
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Laurence Dickerson Bragg, THE LAW FIRM OF GOSS & FENTRESS, Norfolk,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Margaret Winslow Reed, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Chad Patrick O’Handley 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 O’Handley 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: 06-6583

Citation Numbers: 196 F. App'x 222

Judges: King, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/30/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024