Filed: Oct. 24, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6420 MARCUS HUNTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate Judge. (2:07-cv-00269-FBS) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6420 MARCUS HUNTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate Judge. (2:07-cv-00269-FBS) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6420
MARCUS HUNTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman,
Magistrate Judge. (2:07-cv-00269-FBS)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Hunter seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as
untimely. ∗ The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not
issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the magistrate judge is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the
magistrate judge 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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Hunter 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
∗
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent
of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000) and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 73.
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3