Adib Makdessi v. Bryan Watson, No. 10-6268 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6268 ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi, Petitioner Appellant, v. BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00214-RLW) Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi seeks to appeal the district court s order petition. denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue § 2254 absent a See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. showing of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Makdessi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we and dismiss the appeal. deny a certificate of appealability We also deny Makdessi s motions for transcripts and records at Government expense; to preserve his constitutional right to appeal; to compel the prison to grant 2 access to the law library; and for a protective order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal 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.
