DeVinche Albritton v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-6216 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6216 DEVINCHE J. ALBRITTON, Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of the Virginia Department of Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00086-JBF-FBS) Submitted: August 26, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Chief Circuit Decided: September 1, 2009 Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. DeVinche Albritton, Appellant Pro Se. Senior Assistant Attorney General, Appellee. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: DeVinche court s judge order and judge Albritton accepting denying petition. or J. relief issues absent constitutional prisoner to appeal recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the the § district magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue the seeks a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the 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 grant Albritton s motion to amend and supplement his appeal. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Albritton has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.