William Davis, Jr. v. State of North Carolina

Filing 920100126

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6650 WILLIAM HENCELY DAVIS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; D.G. WOOD, Superintendent; WALLACE W. DIXON, Magistrate Judge; FRANK W. BULLOCK, JR., Judge; N. CARLTON TILLEY, Judge, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00706-TDS-PTS) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Hencely Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Hencely Davis, Jr., filed a pleading seeking both coram nobis relief from his state conviction as well as Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's and denied relief. To the extent that Davis recommendation sought to challenge his conviction, the district court found that his pleading was a successive 2254 petition and dismissed it on that basis. The court also found that Davis was not Davis seeks to appeal. entitled to relief under Rule 60. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." this 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006). by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies jurists would standard reasonable 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 record (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently not made reviewed the the conclude Davis 2 has requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We also deny Davis' motions to amend or We dispense and dismiss the appeal. correct the caption and for appointment of counsel. 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 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?