David Cudworth v. Gene Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cv-00373-jlk-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998491517] [10-6459]

Download PDF
David Cudworth v. Gene Johnson Doc. 0 Case: 10-6459 Document: 9 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6459 DAVID JAMES CUDWORTH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department Corrections; CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER OF DISTRICT 15, Respondents - Appellees. of Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cv-00373-jlk-mfu) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 27, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-6459 Document: 9 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: David court's order petition. James denying Cudworth relief seeks his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district (2006) on 2254 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 substantial constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cudworth has not made the requisite showing. 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 2 Case: 10-6459 Document: 9 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 3 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?