Thomas v. Johnson ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7960
    EARL THOMAS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
    (7:06-cv-00324-GEC)
    Submitted: April 26, 2007                       Decided: May 1, 2007
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Earl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.     Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Earl Thomas 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 Thomas has not
    made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 06-7960

Judges: Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd, Williams

Filed Date: 5/1/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024