Douglas Dempsey, III v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 09-6498 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6498 DOUGLAS DEMPSEY, III, Petitioner Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:08-cv-01054-HFF) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Dempsey, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Douglas court s judge order and judge accepting denying petition. or Dempsey, seeks to appeal recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the the § district magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues absent constitutional prisoner the relief a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue III, 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 (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. 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 Dempsey has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a 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.