Claybrooks v. Shearin , 356 F. App'x 662 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7424
    WILLIAM J. CLAYBROOKS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
    MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
    Judge. (8:09-cv-00971-PJM)
    Submitted:    November 23, 2009             Decided:   December 17, 2009
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William J. Claybrooks, Appellant Pro Se.    Edward John Kelley,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
    for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William      J.    Claybrooks        seeks   to     appeal       the   district
    court’s order denying as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006)
    petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                             See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).            A certificate of appealability will not
    issue   absent      “a   substantial          showing      of    the        denial     of     a
    constitutional      right.”           
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2)          (2006).         A
    prisoner     satisfies         this        standard      by     demonstrating              that
    reasonable    jurists         would    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.                  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
    Claybrooks 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 before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7424

Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 662

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Agee

Filed Date: 12/17/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024