Ernest Richardson, Jr. v. State of South Carolina, No. 10-7505 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7505 ERNEST RICHARDSON, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00160-SB) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ernest Richardson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s judge order and petition accepting dismissing as untimely reconsideration. justice or the Richardson s filed, issue and 28 a of U.S.C. the § subsequent magistrate 2254 order (2006) denying The orders are not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not recommendation absent a constitutional right. certificate of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); (2003). see Miller-El Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed dispense in with forma pauperis, oral argument and dismiss because 2 the the appeal. 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.
