Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Whitfield v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petitioner's appeal of a magistrate judge's denial of habeas corpus relief. The court dismisses the appeal, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the magistrate judge's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Specifically, the court conducted an independent review of the record and determined the petitioner did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, the court denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Whitfield v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petitioner's appeal of a magistrate judge's denial of habeas corpus relief. The court dismisses the appeal, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the magistrate judge's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Specifically, the court conducted an independent review of the record and determined the petitioner did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, the court denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7175

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petitioner's appeal of a magistrate judge's denial of habeas corpus relief. The court dismisses the appeal, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the magistrate judge's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Specifically, the court conducted an independent review of the record and determined the petitioner did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, the court denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    0 views3 pages

    Whitfield v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petitioner's appeal of a magistrate judge's denial of habeas corpus relief. The court dismisses the appeal, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the magistrate judge's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Specifically, the court conducted an independent review of the record and determined the petitioner did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, the court denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-7175

    WILLIE LEE WHITFIELD,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director for the Virginia Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
    Judge. (3:07-cv-00417-MHL)

    Submitted:

    November 20, 2008

    Decided:

    December 1, 2008

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Willie Lee Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se.


    Gregory William
    Franklin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Willie Lee Whitfield seeks to appeal the magistrate
    judges order * denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)
    petition.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    2253(c)(1) (2000).
    issue

    absent

    constitutional
    prisoner

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    right.

    satisfies

    reasonable

    jurists

    See 28 U.S.C.

    28

    this
    would

    showing
    U.S.C.

    the

    denial

    2253(c)(2)

    standard
    find

    of

    by

    that

    any

    of

    (2000).

    demonstrating
    assessment

    a
    A

    that

    of

    the

    constitutional claims by the magistrate judge is debatable or


    wrong

    and

    that

    any

    magistrate

    judge

    is

    dispositive
    likewise

    procedural

    debatable.

    ruling

    See

    by

    Miller-El

    the
    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).

    conclude

    that

    We

    have

    Whitfield

    independently
    has

    not

    reviewed

    made

    the

    the

    record

    requisite

    and

    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

    The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by


    the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2000).

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like