Bernard Richardson v. Gene Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00336-jct-mfu)
April 23, 2009
May 1, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Ray Richardson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying his motion to reconsider. not appealable of unless a circuit justice See 28 or The orders are judge issues a
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find
that 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 Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
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?