Brogdon v. Condon, No. 06-6236 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6236 GARY PHILLIP BROGDON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (0:02-cv-00483-CWH) Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 31, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Phillip Brogdon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Phillip Brogdon seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Respondents and dismissing as untimely Brogdon s petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating constitutional (2000). that A prisoner reasonable claims are satisfies jurists debatable this would and that 28 U.S.C. standard find any that by his dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). record and showing. conclude and materials Brogdon has not made the requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts that We have independently reviewed the legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -

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.