Jonathan Dowdy v. Warden Broad River Correctiona, No. 08-7176 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7176 JONATHAN GLENN DOWDY, Jonathan M. Dowdy, a/k/a Jonathan G. Dowdy, a/k/a Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick M. Duffy, District Judge. (8:07-cv-01706-PMD) Submitted: January 13, 2009 Before WILLIAMS, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and TRAXLER January 15, 2009 and KING, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Glenn Dowdy, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan court s order Glenn accepting Dowdy the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2000). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Dowdy has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a 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.