James Strickland v. Warden, Lieber Corr Inst, No. 09-6902 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6902 JAMES S. STRICKLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:07-cv-04103-GRA) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James S. Strickland, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James court s judge order and petition. or judge S. Strickland accepting denying relief issues absent constitutional prisoner reasonable 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 a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue the seeks a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district any of (2006). demonstrating 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 Strickland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * deny Strickland's pending motions, * including his We also motions for To the extent Strickland seeks to raise issues not previously asserted in the district court, we decline to consider such issues. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 appointment general facts of counsel, relief. and materials legal before We for a dispense preliminary with oral argument contentions are adequately the and argument court hearing, and for because the presented would not in the 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.
