Anthony Brooks v. N.N. Va. Police Dept., No. 08-7596 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7596 ANTHONY EUGENE BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. N.N. VA. POLICE DEPT.; CITY OF N.N. VA.; JUSTICE DEPT.; U.S. ATTORNEY; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; DARREN SMITH, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00257-HCM-JEB) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Eugene Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony court s order Eugene denying Brooks relief seeks on his to appeal 28 the U.S.C. district § 2254 (2000) petition that included a complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 See 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 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 Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brooks motion to stay and his motion for discovery, deny a certificate dispense of with appealability, and oral because argument dismiss 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.