John Robinson v. Robert Mauney, No. 08-8601 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8601 JOHN THOMAS ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT M MAUNEY, Warden, Livesay Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:08-cv-01788-RBH) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Thomas Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John court s judge order and petition. or judge Thomas Robinson accepting denying relief issues absent constitutional prisoner reasonable to appeal recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the the § district magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue the seeks a substantial right. jurists appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies constitutional of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by any denial of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robinson's motion to stay his case, 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 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.