Earl Burgess v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920100224

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7718

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)

Submitted:

February 18, 2010

Decided:

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

appealable

unless

circuit

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

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

Burgess

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma oral pauperis, argument and dismiss the the appeal. and We legal

dispense

with

because

facts

2

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

3