Bennie Wicker, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. George N. Martin, Iii, Warden; T.travis Medlock, Attorneygeneral of the State of South Carolina,respondents-appellees, 33 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 33 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 1994) Submitted: July 19, 1994. Decided: August 11, 1994

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-558-3-17BC)

Bennie Wicker, Jr., Appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


Bennie Wicker appeals from a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss.

All of the claims brought by Wicker in the current federal petition are either successive or abusive. See Wicker v. Campbell, No. 90-6045 (4th Cir. May 6, 1991) (unpublished). Wicker alleged mental illness during his previous filings to overcome possible bars to the current action. The district court correctly found that Wicker had failed to bring forth any evidence to show mental illness. Wicker thus failed to show that the ends of justice require revisiting his successive claims. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1963). Wicker also thus failed to show cause and prejudice for his failure earlier to bring the now-abusive claims. McCleskey v. Zant, 501 U.S. 1224 (1991). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Wicker's current petition.

We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.