Timothy Brown v. VDOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00773-AJT-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998540802] [10-7728]

Timothy Brown v. VDOC

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7728

Document: 8

Date Filed: 03/09/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7728

TIMOTHY EUGENE BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00773-AJT-JFA)

Submitted:

February 28, 2011

Decided:

March 9, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Eugene Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7728

Document: 8

Date Filed: 03/09/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Timothy Eugene Brown seeks to appeal the district

court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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 Brown 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: 10-7728

Document: 8

Date Filed: 03/09/2011

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3