Court Opinion

ID: 620231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-01-04 20:31:27+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:29.500416
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 11-6709

JOHN D. EASTWOOD,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted:   October 20, 2011              Decided:   January 4, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Eastwood, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            John D. Eastwood 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 (2006) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate         of       appealability.            28      U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).            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) (2006).               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     Miller-El   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 Eastwood has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave

to    proceed    in      forma   pauperis,      and    dismiss    the    appeal.        We

dispense     with        oral    argument    because      the     facts    and     legal

                                            2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3