Mark Grethen v. Western Regional Director, No. 09-7563 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7563 MARK A. GRETHEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00443-jct-mfu) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Grethen, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark A. Grethen seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 court is likewise debatable. 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 Grethen has not made Grethen s the motion requisite for a showing. certificate Accordingly, of we appealability, deny grant Grethen s motions to amend his informal brief, and dismiss the appeal. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.