Court Opinion

ID: 152061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-02 19:59:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:27.184262
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 10-6517

RANDALL MCBRAYER,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of VDOC,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:09-cv-00411-MHL)

Submitted:   July 22, 2010                 Decided:   August 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall McBrayer, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Randall       McBrayer     seeks        to    appeal        the    magistrate

judge’s order 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) (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 McBrayer 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

       *
       The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by
the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

                                              2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3