Smith v. Johnson

214 F. App'x 350
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 343 F. App'x 949
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 25, 2007·No. 06-6720·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Charles Jerall Smith seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order * 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the rec *351 ord and conclude that Smith 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.

*

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), the parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in the case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith v. Johnson, 214 F. App'x 350 (4th Cir. 2007).

214 F. App'x 350 (Smith v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)