Davis v. Johnson , 258 F. App'x 610 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7109
    JERRY E. DAVIS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (7:07-cv-00089-JCT)
    Submitted:   December 13, 2007         Decided:     December 19, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerry E. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry E. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing as untimely 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 Davis 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: 07-7109

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 610

Judges: Motz, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/19/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023