Larry Hendricks v. Colie Rushton
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
December 16, 2008
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
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
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
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
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?