UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6752
CHAUNCEY LAURENT WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
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. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00548-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chauncey Laurent Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chauncey Laurent Walker seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as
untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Walker has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny Walker’s motion for transcripts at
government expense and his request for the appointment of
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3