Dennis Brown v. Virginia Department of Correct, No. 09-6469 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6469 DENNIS JAMES BROWN, Petitioner Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00065-MHL) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis James Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dennis judge s order petition. James Brown seeks denying relief on to his appeal 28 the U.S.C. § 2254 § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent constitutional prisoner See 28 U.S.C. a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue magistrate jurists constitutional 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Brown's motion to review records, appealability, and dismiss the appeal. and conclude that Accordingly, we deny deny a certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.