Larry Hendricks v. Colie Rushton

Filing 920081229

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8055 LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,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 Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge (3:03-cv-03201-DCN) Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. John William McIntosh, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney Generals, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 a (2000) circuit petition. justice or The order is not a appealable unless judge issues certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a A certificate appealability absent substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by 2253(c)(2) (2000). 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. 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). that We have independently has not reviewed the the record and conclude Hendricks made requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 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?