Edwards v. Johnson , 285 F. App'x 993 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6386
    EARL THOMAS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    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.
    (7:07-cv-00248-GEC-MFU)
    Submitted:     July 31, 2008                 Decided:   August 8, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Earl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Thomas’ motion
    for 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: 08-6386

Citation Numbers: 285 F. App'x 993

Judges: Gregory, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 8/8/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023