Dante Broadway v. Director Dep't of Corrections, No. 13-6612 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6612 DANTE MARCELLOUS BROADWAY, Petitioner Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00065-LO-TCB) Submitted: September 13, 2013 Decided: October 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dante Marcellous Broadway, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dante Marcellous Broadway seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failure to either pay the filing fee or return an in appealable forma unless pauperis a application. circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The or order judge is issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). appealability will 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 merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims 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 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Broadway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Broadway s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
