Bryant Davidson v. D. Horning

Filing 920090317

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7143 BRYANT ELLIOTT DAVIDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. KENNETH HORNING; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cv-00737-WDQ) Submitted: February 17, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryant Elliott Davidson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bryant Elliott Davidson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C. or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of constitutional claims district court debatable wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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). have independently reviewed the record and conclude We that Davidson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?