Earl Burgess v. Gene Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
EARL D. BURGESS, 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. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00083-RAJ-JEB)
February 18, 2010
February 24, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earl D. Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Earl D. Burgess seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying his motions to alter or amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. a Civ. P. 52(b). justice The or orders judge are issues not a A "a
certificate of appealability. certificate of appealability
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent
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. 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
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma oral pauperis, argument and dismiss the the appeal. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
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?