Lafayette Edwards, Sr. v. Isle of Wight Circuit Court, No. 08-6860 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6860 LAFAYETTE T. EDWARDS, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. ISLE OF WIGHT CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00396-GBL-TCB) Submitted: October 17, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lafayette T. Edwards, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lafayette district U.S.C. court s § 2254 remedies. T. Edwards, order (2000) Sr., dismissing petition seeks to without failing to for prejudice § 2253(c)(1) (2000). absent constitutional prisoner the his exhaust 28 state The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue appeal a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2000). A demonstrating any assessment court is a that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.