Vickers v. Johnson

Filing 920070830

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6699

ERIC ALLEN VICKERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director Department of Corrections, of Virginia Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00147)

Submitted:

August 23, 2007

Decided:

August 30, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Allen Vickers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Eric Allen Vickers 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." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

find

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 Vickers has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We dispense with oral

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

In his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, Vickers objected only to the recommendation regarding his claims D, G, H, I(1), and E. By failing to object to the recommendation regarding his remaining claims, despite a specific warning of the consequences of failure to object, he has waived appellate review of the denial of relief on those claims. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). - 2 -

*

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -