Corey Johnson v. Loretta Kelly, No. 08-8081 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8081 COREY E. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00731-RLW) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 6, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Arthur DeVita, BUTLER LEGAL GROUP, P.L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s order 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. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue 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 record and showing. Cir. 2001). conclude that We have Johnson independently has not made reviewed the the requisite Accordingly, while we grant Johnson s motion to amend his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.