David Landeck v. David Zook, No. 16-7432 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7432 DAVID GREGORY LANDECK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID ZOOK, Warden, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. No. 16-7514 CHRISTOPHER TODD LANDECK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. I. T. GILMORE, Warden – Coffewood Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick C. Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00106-RCY; 3:15-cv00105-RCY) Submitted: April 28, 2017 Decided: May 10, 2017 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Gregory Landeck; Christopher Todd Landeck, Appellants Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David Gregory Landeck and Christopher Todd Landeck seek to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. * The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 the Landecks have not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. We further deny the motion for a second brief following the certificate of appealability ruling. We dispense with oral * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
