Hill v. Johnson , 406 F. App'x 697 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7050
    DAVID D’ANTE HILL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (2:09-cv-00383-MSD-FBS)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 28, 2010
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David D’Ante Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David D’Ante Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on 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).                      When the district court denies
    relief   on    the    merits,       a    prisoner      satisfies       this      standard    by
    demonstrating        that        reasonable         jurists    would       find     that    the
    district      court’s      assessment       of      the    constitutional          claims    is
    debatable     or     wrong.         Slack   v.       McDaniel,       
    529 U.S. 473
    ,    484
    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003).
    When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
    prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
    ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                             Slack, 
    529 U.S. at 484-85
    .         We    have     independently          reviewed        the    record    and
    conclude      that        Hill     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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7050

Citation Numbers: 406 F. App'x 697

Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Davis

Filed Date: 12/28/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024