Julius Edwards v. Roy Cooper, No. 09-8057 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8057 JULIUS KEVIN EDWARDS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROY COOPER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00528-JAB-DPD) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julius Kevin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julius court s order Kevin Edwards accepting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive. justice order is judge or The issues a issue absent constitutional prisoner a right. jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by of unless a circuit appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial satisfies reasonable appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not not showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is of 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 Edwards 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.