Adib Makdessi v. Bryan Watson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi, Petitioner Appellant, v. BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00214-RLW)
January 28, 2011
March 9, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
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 of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this would standard find that by the demonstrating district that
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief both on procedural the When the district court the prisoner ruling must is
debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record and conclude that
Makdessi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal.
We also deny Makdessi's motions for
transcripts and records at Government expense; to preserve his constitutional right to appeal; to compel the prison to grant 2
access to the law library; and for a protective order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?