Emmett Nall v. Warden Bazzle, No. 09-6314 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6314 EMMETT RAY NALL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BAZZLE, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent Appellee, and HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:07-cv-01483-JFA) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Decided: Circuit Judges, August 26, 2009 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmett Ray Nall, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Emmett Ray Nall seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying petition. relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner (2006) a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2006). A demonstrating any assessment court is a that of the 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 Nall 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.