Bryant v. Johnson , 280 F. App'x 263 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6396
    MCKINLEY BRYANT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (3:07-cv-00151-RLW)
    Submitted:   May 29, 2008                   Decided:   June 5, 2008
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    McKinley Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Winston Stallard, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    McKinley Bryant 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.        See 
    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.         See    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 Bryant
    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: 08-6396

Citation Numbers: 280 F. App'x 263

Judges: Traxler, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 6/5/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024