DeVinche Albritton v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920090901

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6216

DEVINCHE J. ALBRITTON, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of the Virginia Department of

Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00086-JBF-FBS)

Submitted:

August 26, 2009

Decided: September 1, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Chief

Circuit

Judge,

and

GREGORY

and

SHEDD,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

DeVinche Albritton, Appellant Pro Se. Senior Assistant Attorney General, Appellee.

Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: DeVinche court's judge order and J. Albritton the seeks to appeal of the district

accepting

recommendation his 28

the §

magistrate (2006)

denying

relief

on

U.S.C.

2254

petition. or judge

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2006).

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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). Albritton's motion to amend and supplement his appeal. We grant We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Albritton has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a the appeal. and We legal

dismiss the

with

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2