John McBride v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920090604

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8508

JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-6278

JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00246-MHL)

Submitted:

May 28, 2009

Decided:

June 4, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John David McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: In seeks to these consolidated the district appeals, court's John orders David McBride as

appeal

dismissing

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motions. These orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, 369 (4th not Cir. issue 2004). absent A "a

certificate

appealability

will

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

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

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. 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). that We have independently has not made reviewed the the record and

conclude

McBride

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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. DISMISSED 3