Court Opinion

ID: 625627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-03-19 19:08:41+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:12.308698
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-7557

MICHAEL LEE ELLIS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR OF THE VA DOC,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00418-LMB-JFA)

Submitted:   March 15, 2012                 Decided:   March 19, 2012

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lee Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Michael Lee Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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)(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     Ellis    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