Larry Phillips v. Gene Johnson, No. 08-8376 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8376 LARRY D. PHILLIPS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of the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. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (2:08-cv-00383-JEB) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry D. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry judge s order petition. * D. Phillips denying seeks relief on to his appeal 28 the U.S.C. § 2254 § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent constitutional prisoner reasonable (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue magistrate a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2006). A demonstrating any assessment court is a that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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). have independently reviewed the record and Phillips has not made the requisite showing. conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because * the facts This case was decided by a magistrate judge parties consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 We and We legal with the contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.