Antonio Johnson v. Gene Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO DANELL JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, 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-00747-MHL)
January 15, 2009
February 13, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Danell Johnson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Antonio Danell Johnson 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 See 28 U.S.C.
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a the appeal. and We legal
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?