Everette Johnson v. Harold Clarke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00026-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: E. Johnson. [15-6068]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
EVERETTE LEWIS JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, DOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00026-RBS-TEM)
May 21, 2015
May 26, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Everette Lewis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Everette Lewis Johnson 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 (2012) petition.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court
debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Johnson has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?