Chris Drye v. Alvin Keller, Jr., No. 09-7755 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7755 CHRIS DARRYL DRYE, Petitioner Appellant, v. ALVIN KELLER, JR., Respondent Appellee, and THEODIS BECK, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00118-WO-DPD) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chris Darryl Drye, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chris Darryl Drye seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies this standard by 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 Cockrell, 537 court is likewise U.S. 322, 336-38 debatable. (2003); Slack Miller-El v. v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and Drye has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Drye s motions to appoint counsel, for a transcript at government expense, documentation of response, and dismiss the appeal. and for We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 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.