Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hendricks v. Rushton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    Larry Hendricks appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Hendricks did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's assessment of Hendricks' constitutional claims was correct or that its procedural rulings were debatable. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8055

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Larry Hendricks appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Hendricks did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's assessment of Hendricks' constitutional claims was correct or that its procedural rulings were debatable. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Hendricks v. Rushton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Larry Hendricks appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Hendricks did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's assessment of Hendricks' constitutional claims was correct or that its procedural rulings were debatable. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-8055

    LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of
    South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    David C. Norton, District Judge
    (3:03-cv-03201-DCN)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2008

    Decided:

    December 29, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. John William McIntosh,


    Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney Generals, Donald
    John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    denying

    his

    Fed.

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    60(b)

    motion

    for

    reconsideration of the district courts order denying relief on


    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    appealable

    2254

    unless

    (2000)

    petition.

    circuit

    justice

    certificate of appealability.
    Reid

    v.

    Angelone,

    A certificate

    of

    369

    The
    or

    order

    judge

    is

    not

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000);

    F.3d

    363,

    appealability

    369

    will

    not

    (4th

    Cir.

    issue

    2004).

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28

    U.S.C.

    standard

    by

    2253(c)(2)

    (2000).

    demonstrating

    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this
    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.

    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).

    conclude

    that

    We

    have

    Hendricks

    independently
    has

    not

    reviewed

    made

    the

    the

    record

    requisite

    and

    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

    You might also like