Brandon Lewis v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920100527

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6167

BRANDON L. LEWIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of the Virginia Department of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00259-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted:

May 20, 2010

Decided:

May 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon L. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Brandon L. Lewis 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 (2006) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(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. at 484-85. that We have independently has not made reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude

Lewis

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma oral pauperis, argument and dismiss the the appeal. and We legal

dispense

with

because

facts

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3