Michael Girrard Grooms, Petitioner Appellant, v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department Ofcorrections, Respondent Appellee, 42 F.3d 1385 (4th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-93-685)
Michael Girrard Grooms, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.
E.D.N.C.
DISMISSED.
Before RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* Grooms v. Murray, No. CA-93-685 (E.D. Va. Jan. 20, 1994). 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.
We agree that Grooms' ineffective assistance claims fail the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Grooms' remaining claims are procedurally barred because he failed to present those claims in his first state habeas corpus petition, see Va.Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-654(B) (2) (Michie 1992), and because he failed to show cause and prejudice for his default. See Bassette v. Thompson, 915 F.2d 932, 937 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 982 (1991). Finally, we grant Grooms' motion to file an amended informal brief
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.
