Alvin Gregory v. Michael Coleman, No. 10-6518 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6518 ALVIN LEE GREGORY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL V. COLEMAN, Acting Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (5:02-cv-00472) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin Lee Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Charles Patrick OF CORRECTIONS, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alvin Lee Gregory, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district vacate court s judgment appealable denying file objections. and order unless a circuit of justice on his The order not a A will judge is to issues appealability or motions 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability. certificate relief not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude that We have Gregory independently has Gregory sought to orders (1) construing his 2010) petition as a 28 dismissing it as untimely, not made reviewed the record requisite and showing. challenge the district court s prior 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and and (2) denying reconsideration. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 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.
