Willie Whitfield v. Gene Johnson, No. 08-7175 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7175 WILLIE LEE WHITFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director for the Virginia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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 judge s 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 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). 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
