Court Opinion

ID: 183045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-01-19 19:25:12+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:09.095969
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 10-7252

ANTHONY DAWAIN SHAW,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00593-MSD-FBS)

Submitted:   January 13, 2011              Decided:   January 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dawain Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III,   Assistant  Attorney  General,  Richmond,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Anthony        Dawain     Shaw        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     Shaw    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