Albert Brockman-El v. North Carolina Department of C, No. 10-6068 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6068 ALBERT FITZGERALD BROCKMAN-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ALVIN W. KELLER, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00633-WO-LPA) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Fitzgerald Brockman-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albert district Fitzgerald court s order Brockman-El accepting the seeks to appeal recommendation the of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this claims by showing U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of that district by any (2006). demonstrating assessment court is of a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Brockman-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.