Johnson v. Director, Department of Corrections , 406 F. App'x 717 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7421
    LAMONT M. JOHNSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:09-cv-00465-HEH)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 29, 2010
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lamont M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lamont Marquise Johnson seeks to appeal the district
    court’s    order    denying    relief      on    his   28    U.S.C.     § 2254    (2006)
    petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                         See 28 U.S.C.
    § 2253(c)(1) (2006).           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) (2006).               When the
    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
    this    standard     by    demonstrating        that   reasonable       jurists    would
    find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
    claims is debatable or wrong.              Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,        
    537 U.S. 322
    ,    336-38
    (2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural
    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                          
    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85
    .           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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7421

Citation Numbers: 406 F. App'x 717

Judges: Davis, Duncan, Gregory, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023