Filed: Mar. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7878 RAY WASHINGTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00134-JBF) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dism
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7878 RAY WASHINGTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00134-JBF) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7878
RAY WASHINGTON, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00134-JBF)
Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray Washington, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the 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 Washington 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 before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -