Kelvin Hargrove v. Nottoway Correctional Center, No. 09-8095 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8095 KELVIN L. HARGROVE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-01242-CMH-JFA) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin L. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kelvin court s order petition. L. Hargrove denying relief seeks on to appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 his § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent constitutional prisoner reasonable (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue district a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by 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). have independently reviewed the record and Hargrove 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.