Floyd Bolding v. Department of Correction

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00660-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998739712]. Mailed to: Bolding. [11-6926]

Appeal: 11-6926

Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6926

FLOYD DINSDALE BOLDING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; D. M. VAUGHN, Warden of Nottoway
State Prison; GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00660-JRS)

Submitted:

November 10, 2011

Decided:

December 8, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd Dinsdale Bolding, Appellant Pro Se.
Joshua Mikell
Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6926

Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Floyd Dinsdale Bolding 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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Bolding 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

Appeal: 11-6926

before

Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3