Cedric Perkins v. Robert Bollinger, No. 09-7809 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7809 CEDRIC EMMANUEL PERKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT P. BOLLINGER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cv-03208-DCN) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric Emmanuel Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cedric Emmanuel Perkins seeks to appeal the district court s judge order and denying petition. or judge accepting relief issues absent constitutional prisoner 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 constitutional appealability. 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 by that (2006). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of the 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 Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Perkins has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a We 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.