Robert Fields v. Douglas Vaughn, No. 09-7890 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7890 ROBERT FIELDS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DOUGLAS B. VAUGHN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00844-MHL) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Fields seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fields has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and dismiss because Accordingly, we deny a the the appeal. facts and The parties consented to the magistrate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 We legal judge s 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.