Donta L. Thornton v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6857
DONTA L. THORNTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
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. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-586-2)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donta L. Thornton, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Walter Kilgore,
Attorney General, Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Donta L. Thornton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny his
petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. This
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 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Thornton has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We further deny Thornton’s motion to authorize
preparation of a transcript at government expense and his motion
for all court records. 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 of 2 --