Johnson v. Ray ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6791
    JEFFREY M. JOHNSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    TRACY RAY,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (CA-04-556-7)
    Submitted:   October 18, 2005             Decided:   October 20, 2005
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jeffrey M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
    III, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Jeffrey M. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).               An
    appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding
    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 are
    also 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 Johnson 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: 05-6791

Judges: Widener, Michael, Duncan

Filed Date: 10/20/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024