Pruden v. Johnson , 266 F. App'x 228 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6462
    DAMION L. PRUDEN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director       of   the   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. (2:06-cv-00129-JBF)
    Submitted:   November 6, 2007                 Decided:   January 8, 2008
    Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Damion L. Pruden, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Damion L. Pruden seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order 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 Pruden has not
    made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Pruden’s motion
    for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                  We
    further deny Pruden’s motion for refund of the filing fee.                  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: 07-6462

Citation Numbers: 266 F. App'x 228

Judges: Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wilkins

Filed Date: 1/8/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024