Larry Hendricks v. Colie Rushton, No. 08-8055 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8055 LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge (3:03-cv-03201-DCN) Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. John William McIntosh, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney Generals, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. appealable § 2254 unless petition. circuit a (2000) justice certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 The or order judge is not issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will not (4th Cir. issue 2004). absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard by § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is 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). conclude that We have Hendricks independently has not reviewed made the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.