Marcus Hunter v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920081024

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6420

MARCUS HUNTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate Judge. (2:07-cv-00269-FBS)

Submitted:

October 21, 2008

Decided:

October 24, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Marcus Hunter seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

untimely. or judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find that of the denial of a A that the

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2000).

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment of

constitutional claims by the magistrate judge is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the

magistrate judge 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

Hunter has not made the requisite showing. a certificate with of appealability argument and

Accordingly, we deny the appeal. and We legal

dismiss the

dispense

oral

because

facts

This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3