Titus Geer v. Tim Riley, No. 09-8142 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8142 TITUS C. GEER, a/k/a Titus Geer, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TIM RILEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:09-cv-01769-CMC) Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Titus C. Geer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Titus C. Geer, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this by showing U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of that by assessment court is of (2006). demonstrating any district denial a A that of debatable the 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 Geer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately * Although Geer filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006), the district court properly construed it as one appropriately filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006). 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.