Ronald Cosby v. Gene Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RONALD COSBY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00166-MHL)
August 27, 2008
October 6, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Cosby, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ronald Cosby seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's* order 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. See 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." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard 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. See 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 Cosby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a We dispense
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
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
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?