Court Opinion

ID: 2968521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 07:08:12.20063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:25.555433
License: Public Domain

Vacated by Supreme Court, January 17, 2012

                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 10-6638

TONY STEVENSON JOHNSON, a/k/a Tony S. Johnson,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

MCKITHER BODISON,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(6:09-cv-01037-TLW)

Submitted:    October 14, 2010              Decided:   October 21, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Stevenson Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Tony Stevenson Johnson 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 Johnson 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

                                            2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3