Tyrone Robinson v. Warden, Ridgeland Correctional, No. 09-6715 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6715 TYRONE LORENZO ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:07-cv-03270-SB) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson seeks to appeal the district court s judge order and petition. or judge accepting denying relief issues absent constitutional prisoner reasonable recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the § magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue the a substantial right. jurists appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies constitutional 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 debatable the 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Robinson s motion for bail pending appeal. deny a We deny We also dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.