Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Matthews v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Neil C. Matthews' appeal of a district court order that denied his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court issued a per curiam (by the court) unpublished opinion stating that Matthews did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of habeas relief. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied Matthews' request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6512

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Neil C. Matthews' appeal of a district court order that denied his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court issued a per curiam (by the court) unpublished opinion stating that Matthews did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of habeas relief. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied Matthews' request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Matthews v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Neil C. Matthews' appeal of a district court order that denied his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court issued a per curiam (by the court) unpublished opinion stating that Matthews did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of habeas relief. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied Matthews' request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6512

    NEIL C. MATTHEWS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director
    Department of Corrections,

    of

    the

    Virginia
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
    Judge. (2:06-cv-00173)

    Submitted: July 24, 2007

    Decided:

    July 31, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Neil C. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF


    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Neil C. Matthews seeks to appeal the district courts
    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).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    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 Matthews has


    not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like