Utz v. Johnson , 82 F. App'x 83 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7510
    CHARLES JUSTIN UTZ,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON,         Director   of   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. (CA-03-181)
    Submitted:    November 19, 2003                Decided:   December 5, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles Justin Utz, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Charles Justin Utz, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district      court’s   order   accepting   a   magistrate    judge’s
    recommendation to dismiss his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000), as untimely.    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
    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or
    wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003); Slack
    v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    ,
    683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
    conclude that Utz 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: 03-7510

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 83

Judges: Wilkinson, Gregory, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/5/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024