Court Opinion

ID: 177297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-10-15 17:47:26+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:41.479369
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-6988

JIMMY EUGENE SIMONS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE   M.   JOHNSON,   Director,   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. (2:10-cv-00024-JBF-DEM)

Submitted:   September 30, 2010           Decided:   October 15, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Eugene Simons, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Jimmy      Eugene     Simons      seeks       to    appeal         the    district

court’s    order      accepting      the      recommendation           of    the       magistrate

judge    and     denying        relief   on     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) (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 Simons 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

                                               2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3