Richard Blankenship, Jr. v. R. Mitchell, No. 09-6640 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6640 RICHARD AARON BLANKENSHIP, JR., Petitioner Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Correctional Institution, Mountain View Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00027-GCM) Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: April 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing § 2254 (2006) petition. as untimely his 28 U.S.C. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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. 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). have independently reviewed the record and Blankenship has not made the requisite showing. conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the We 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.