US v. Theodore Gladysz, No. 09-7036 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THEODORE GLADYSZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00090-IMK-JSK-2) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Gladysz, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Theodore Gladysz seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his motion for recusal as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. justice or The judge order issues is a not appealable certificate of unless a circuit appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. this 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). standard by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is 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 record and showing. Cir. 2001). conclude that We have Gladysz independently has not made reviewed the the requisite Accordingly, we deny Gladysz s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.