John Colwell v. Warden, Broad River Correction, No. 10-7025 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7025 JOHN EDWARD COLWELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:10-cv-01100-HMH) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 1, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Edward Colwell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John court s judge Edward order and Colwell accepting denying the his seeks to appeal recommendation Fed. R. Civ. of P. the the district magistrate 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. appealable § 2254 unless petition. circuit a (2006) justice certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 The or order judge is issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). 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 Colwell independently has not made reviewed the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the 2 pending motion for a new trial, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We 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.
