Ronnie Ellis v. Gene Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cv-00394-MSD-TEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998549156]. Mailed to: Ronnie Junior Ellis and attorney Robert H. Anderson, III. [10-6569]

Ronnie Ellis v. Gene Johnson

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6569

Document: 13

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6569

RONNIE JUNIOR ELLIS, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director (VA D.O.C.), Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00394-MSD-TEM)

Submitted:

February 8, 2011

Decided:

March 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Junior Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6569

Document: 13

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Ronnie court's judge order and Junior Ellis the seeks to appeal of the the § district magistrate (2006)

accepting

recommendation his 28

denying

relief

on

U.S.C.

2254

petition. or judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record Ellis 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

Case: 10-6569

Document: 13

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3