UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6638
TONY STEVENSON JOHNSON, a/k/a Tony S. Johnson,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MCKITHER BODISON,
Respondent - Appellee.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 10-9236)
Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony Stevenson Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Stevenson Johnson appealed from the district
court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. While the district court granted a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) as to all issues raised by Johnson, we
overlooked this fact in our initial consideration of this
appeal. Finding that Johnson had not made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right on appeal, we denied a
COA and dismissed the appeal.
Johnson filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari,
vacated this Court’s judgment, and remanded for consideration of
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012). Johnson v. Bodison,
132 S. Ct. 1088 (2012). In Gonzalez, the Supreme Court ruled
that the specificity requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2006) were not jurisdictional and that an appeal may proceed
based even upon a defective COA. 132 S. Ct. at 652. Because
our procedural ruling was not based upon any finding that the
district court’s COA was defective, we conclude that the ruling
in Gonzalez has no effect on our consideration of the case.
On remand, we have examined the case anew on its
merits, considering the record as well as Johnson’s arguments on
appeal, and we find no reversible error. With regard to certain
2
claims, Johnson fails to challenge dispositive legal and factual
findings by the district court in his informal brief and, thus,
has forfeited review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). With regard to the
remaining claims, after a careful review of the record, we
affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s opinion,
as adopted by the district court. Johnson v. Bodison, No. 6:09-
cv-01037-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2010). We deny Johnson’s petition
for rehearing and for rehearing en banc. 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.
AFFIRMED
3