Joseph Griffith v. Sidney Harkleroad, No. 10-6492 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6492 JOSEPH MICHAEL GRIFFITH, Petitioner Appellant, v. SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00026-GCM) Submitted: November 22, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Michael Griffith, DelForge, III, Assistant Carolina, for Appellee. Appellant Attorney Pro Se. General, Clarence Joe Raleigh, North Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Michael Griffith, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of 28 The order is issues a A appealability will or his 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability. justice on not judge issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude that We have Griffith independently has not reviewed made 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 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.
