Dale Jenkins v. Elaine Robinson, No. 09-6392 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6392 DALE BRUCE JENKINS, Petitioner Appellant, v. ELAINE ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:08-cv-01678-TLW) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale Bruce Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dale court s judge order and petition. Bruce Jenkins accepting denying the relief seeks to appeal recommendation on his 28 of the the U.S.C. magistrate § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C. or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue district absent constitutional prisoner a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2006). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a 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 Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. and conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and Jenkins motion for a transcript at government expense and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the 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.