Andris Wright v. Glenn Stone, No. 10-6103 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6103 ANDRIS WRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GLENN STONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00379-HMH) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andris Wright, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andris Wright seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation 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 or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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 that We have Wright independently has not made reviewed the the record requisite and showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials * To the extent that Wright seeks to raise issues here not first presented to the district court, we decline to consider such issues. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 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.
