Jimmy Simons v. Gene Johnson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00024-JBF-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998446266] [10-6988]
Jimmy Simons v. Gene Johnson
Doc. 0
Case: 10-6988 Document: 6
Date Filed: 10/15/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6988 JIMMY EUGENE SIMONS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director, Virginia Department of
Respondent Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00024-JBF-DEM) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 15, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Eugene Simons, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-6988 Document: 6
Date Filed: 10/15/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Jimmy court's judge order and Eugene accepting Simons the seeks to appeal of the the § district magistrate (2006)
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. Slack,
We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Simons 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: 10-6988 Document: 6
Date Filed: 10/15/2010
Page: 3
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process. DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?