Curtis Taylor, Sr. v. George Hinkle, No. 09-6549 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6549 CURTIS LEON TAYLOR, SR., Petitioner Appellant, v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Respondent Appellee. No. 10-6657 CURTIS LEON TAYLOR, SR., Petitioner Appellant, v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Respondent Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00306-MHL) Submitted: June 9, 2010 Decided: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. July 9, 2010 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr. seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and appealable denying unless certificate of a reconsideration. * circuit The justice appealability. See or 28 orders judge U.S.C. are issues of appealability will not a § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). certificate not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude that We have Taylor independently has not * made reviewed the record requisite and showing. The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 3 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Taylor s motion for de novo review, and dismiss the appeals. 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 4
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.
