Timothy Booker v. Gene Johnson ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6418
    TIMOTHY LAMONT BOOKER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    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.    Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (2:10-cv-00271-MSD-DEM)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2011             Decided:   December 19, 2011
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy Lamont Booker, Appellant Pro Se.      Virginia Bidwell
    Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy     Lamont    Booker        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
         (2006)
    petition.       The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or    judge    issues     a    certificate        of   appealability.                 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(A) (2006).            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) (2006).                          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    (2000);     see    Miller-El     v.    Cockrell,            
    537 U.S. 322
    ,    336-38
    (2003).        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 Booker 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6418

Filed Date: 12/19/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2014