Jeffrey Young-Bey v. John Rowley, No. 08-6693 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6693 JEFFREY M. YOUNG-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN ROWLEY, Warden; STATE OF MARYLAND; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:07-cv-01137-JFM) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Gary E. O Connor, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jeffrey M. Young-Bey seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young-Bey has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We 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.