# Johnson v. Rushton

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 20, 2008 · 289 F. App'x 655

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026481

## Case

- **Full name:** Leonard BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 20, 2008
- **Citations:** 289 F. App'x 655
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Michael, Wilkins, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026481

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6594

MICHAEL LOUIS JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of
South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (6:06-cv-02544-SB)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Louis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Michael Louis Johnson 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 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable 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 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 Johnson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny his motions for appointment of counsel and to

compel for the production of documents and things, and we 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026481. Public record. Not legal advice.