Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06462/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06462-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee
Damion L. Pruden
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6462

DAMION L. PRUDEN,

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-00129-JBF)

Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: January 8, 2008

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damion L. Pruden, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6462 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/08/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Damion L. Pruden seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on 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 Pruden has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pruden’s motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

further deny Pruden’s motion for refund of the filing fee. 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: 07-6462 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/08/2008 Pg: 2 of 2