Filed: Feb. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8098 JOHNNY HUNT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00186-JAB-DPD) Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8098 JOHNNY HUNT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00186-JAB-DPD) Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnn..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8098
JOHNNY HUNT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00186-JAB-DPD)
Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 26, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary
Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).
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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Hunt has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
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
2