Court Opinion

ID: 1030809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 08:20:37.777911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:10.145866
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 09-7043

MICHAEL A. BOYD,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

COMM. OF HAMPTON CIR.; GENE JOHNSON,

                  Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00055-RBS-TEM)

Submitted:    November 17, 2009             Decided:   November 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Michael A. Boyd 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)

(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).         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    Boyd       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

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                            DISMISSED

                                           2