John Hill v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . - 3 - PER CURIAM: John Hill, a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6886
JOHN HILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 05-6993
JOHN HILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-05-15-2)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

* Appeal number 05-6886 represents Hill’s appeal from the
magistrate judge’s recommendation. That recommendation did not
constitute a final appealable order, however, and hence that appeal
is dismissed as interlocutory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
John Hill, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order adopting the recommendation of a magistrate
judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000). * An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
§ 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (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 also deny Hill’s motions for oral argument and
appointment of counsel. We note that the facts and legal

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --