John David McBride v. Gene Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8508
JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-6278
JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:08-cv-00246-MHL)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

John David McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, John David McBride
seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as
untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying relief
on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motions. These orders
are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 McBride has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --