Thomas v. Johnson , 241 F. App'x 989 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6612
    DAVE A. THOMAS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director       of   the   Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
    Judge. (2:06-cv-00338-WDK)
    Submitted:   August 31, 2007               Decided:   September 19, 2007
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dave A. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dave A. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and
    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 leave to proceed
    in    forma   pauperis,   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: 07-6612

Citation Numbers: 241 F. App'x 989

Judges: Duncan, King, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 9/19/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023