Derrick Harrell v. Anthony Hathaway

Filing 920090408

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7685 DERRICK HARRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ANTHONY HATHAWAY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02052-H) Submitted: March 6, 2009 Decided: April 8, 2009 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derrick Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derrick Harrell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his post-judgment motion, construed by the court as a motion pursuant of the to Fed. R. order Civ. P. 59(e), as seeking untimely reconsideration court's dismissing Harrell's 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition. appealable certificate (2006). unless of a circuit justice See 28 or The order is not judge issues a appealability. U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find standard demonstrating reasonable jurists 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. 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). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Harrell's brief alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his motion, and we discern none. Accordingly, we deny a certificate We dispense with oral of appealability and dismiss the appeal. argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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?