Fred Johnson v. Eddie Pearson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:17-cv-00239-JAG-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000352333]. Mailed to: Fred Johnson. [18-6515]

Appeal: 18-6515

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/21/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6515

FRED LEE JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EDDIE L. PEARSON, (Warden) Greenville Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00239-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: August 16, 2018

Decided: August 21, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6515

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/21/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Fred Lee Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as time-barred. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2012). 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). 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 (2000); see MillerEl v. 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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 before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2