Court Opinion

ID: 1026924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:14:37.928165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:23.833813
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6308

PAUL AVON MILLS,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,      Director   of   the   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. (2:07-cv-00110-JBF-FBS)

Submitted:    October 21, 2008               Decided:    October 24, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Avon Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Paul Avon Mills 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 (2000) petition.                                The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.                   28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

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)        (2000).          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    Mills       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

before   the    court      and    argument        would    not    aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                              2