John McBride v. Gene Johnson, No. 08-8508 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8508 JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. No. 09-6278 JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00246-MHL) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. June 4, 2009 John David McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In seeks to these appeal consolidated the district appeals, court s John David orders McBride dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motions. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, certificate of 369 F.3d 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). A absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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). conclude We that have McBride independently has not made reviewed the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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 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.
