Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07884/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07884-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clinton Hill
Appellant
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7884

CLINTON HILL, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE M. JOHNSON, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00193-JBF-JEB) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Clinton Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant 

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7884 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Clinton Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Hill 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 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7884 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2