Donnell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 08-6603 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6603 DONNELL JOSEPH MORRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00114-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnell Joseph Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donnell Joseph Morris, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent a constitutional right. See 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a 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 Morris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Morris motion requesting subpoena for telephone transcripts, and dismiss the appeal. a 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 -

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.