Shawn Gregory v. Kathleen Bassett, No. 09-6516 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6516 SHAWN DELANO GREGORY, Petitioner Appellant, v. KATHLEEN BASSETT, Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00790-MHL) Submitted: August 31, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Susan L. Ferguson, Burbank, California, for Appellant. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Delano Gregory seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s 1 order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner 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 any district of (2006). demonstrating 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 and Gregory has not made the requisite showing. 2 conclude that Accordingly, we 1 The parties consented to have the matter conducted by a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 2 In reaching the conclusion that Gregory has not met the standard of issuance of a certificate of appealability, we have carefully evaluated both the magistrate judge s primary conclusion that Gregory s § 2254 petition was untimely and the alternative finding that Gregory s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the search of his residence. We conclude that (Continued) 2 deny a certificate of appealability 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 reasonable jurists would not find either holding to be debatable or wrong. 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.
