Stevenson v. Johnson

Fourth Circuit

Stevenson v. Johnson

105 F. App'x 517

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 2004

Docket03-7852

StatusUnpublished

This text of 105 F. App'x 517 (Stevenson v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevenson v. Johnson, 105 F. App'x 517 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Austin Skinner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his *518 petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, found that the petition was untimely. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Skinner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion 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

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

PER CURIAM:

Austin Skinner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his *518 petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, found that the petition was untimely. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Skinner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 F. App'x 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevenson-v-johnson-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack