Michael Armstrong v. John Owen, No. 09-7336 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7336 MICHAEL NELSON ARMSTRONG, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JOHN R. OWEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:09-cv-01505-CMC) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Nelson Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Nelson Armstrong seeks to appeal the district court s judge order to accepting dismiss successive 28 his the 28 U.S.C.A. recommendation U.S.C. § 2255 dismissing it on that basis. a circuit justice appealability. 369 F.3d 363, or § 2241 (West of the (2006) Supp. magistrate petition 2009) as motion, a and The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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. 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 Armstrong has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny a 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 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.