US v. Theodore Gladysz, No. 08-7559 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7559 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THEODORE GLADYSZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00090-IMK-JSK-2; 1:08-cv-00075-IMKJSK) Submitted: March 24, 2009 Decided: April 16, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Gladysz, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Theodore Gladysz seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A 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 We that Accordingly, have Gladysz we deny independently has not made Gladysz s reviewed the motion the record requisite for and showing. appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.