Johnny Miller v. Harold Clarke

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Johnny Miller v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7542

JOHNNY E. MILLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00425-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny E. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Johnny E. Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2006) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1)(A) (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 Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished