Ricky Murray v. E. Bazzle, No. 09-7401 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7401 RICKY LAFAYETTE MURRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (0:07-cv-03960-DCN) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Lafayette Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Lafayette Murray 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 (2006) 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) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating A that prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this 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). conclude We that have Murray independently has not reviewed made the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with contentions oral are argument adequately because presented 2 the in facts the and We legal 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.