Roy Hunt, Jr. v. Gene Johnson, No. 10-7456 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7456 ROY HUNT, JR., Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00389-RLW) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roy Hunt, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Hunt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 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.
