Hobart Parker v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-6940 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6940 HOBART MATTHEW PARKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of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. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00542-RGD-JEB) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: NIEMEYER, October 26, 2009 Circuit Judge, and Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hobart Matthew Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Joanne Virginia Frye, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hobart court s judge order and judge accepting denying petition. or Matthew seeks 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 issues absent constitutional prisoner the relief a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue Parker 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 (2006). demonstrating any district of 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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parker has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.