Case ID: f-appx_105/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Austin SKINNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-6844.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 29, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 13, 2004.
    Austin Skinner, Appellant pro se.
    Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Austin Skinner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, found that the petition was untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Skinner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED