Michael Lerch v. George Hinkle, No. 09-6522 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6522 MICHAEL LERCH, Petitioner Appellant, v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, 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-00305-MHL) Submitted: September 3, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lerch, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Lerch seeks to appeal the district court s 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 § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 U.S.C. this would claims by showing 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 Lerch has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because * the the we appeal. facts and The parties consented to the jurisdiction magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 deny of a We legal the contentions are adequately 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.