Rodrecus Morris v. David Everett

Filing 920100224

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7676 RODRECUS A. MORRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID B. EVERETT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00488-GBL-TRJ) Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodrecus A. Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodrecus court's order A. Morris relief seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district (2006) denying 2254 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Morris' motion for certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in the the materials decisional contentions the court would aid 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?