Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07473/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07473-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee
Ronald E. McCray
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7473

RONALD E. MCCRAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00728-JBF)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald E. McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7473 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald E. McCray seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCray 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7473 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 2