Kelvin Hargrove v. Nottoway Correctional Center

Filing 920100503

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8095 KELVIN L. HARGROVE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-01242-CMH-JFA) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin L. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kelvin court's order L. Hargrove 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). have independently reviewed the record and conclude We that Hargrove has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense 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 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?