Dwight Lewis v. Keith Davis, No. 09-7139 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7139 DWIGHT DAVID LEWIS, Petitioner Appellant, v. KEITH W. DAVIS, Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cv-00184-jlk-mfu) Submitted: October 21, 2009 Decided: November 16, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight David Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwight court s Lewis dismissing order David as (2006) petition. justice or seeks to successive appeal his the 28 district U.S.C. § 2254 The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). of appealability. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. appealability, deny Accordingly, leave dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before to we proceed deny in a certificate of forma pauperis, and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.