David Robinson v. Vance Laughlin, No. 10-7552 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7552 DAVID ROBINSON, Petitioner Appellant, v. VANCE LAUGHLIN; MARYLAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:10-cv-01800-PJM) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 21, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, for Appellee The Attorney General of the State of Maryland. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Robinson seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. These orders are not judge appealable certificate (2006). unless of a circuit appealability. justice 28 See or U.S.C. issues a § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). on the merits, demonstrating district debatable that court s or a When the district court denies relief prisoner satisfies reasonable assessment wrong. Slack 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 Robinson 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 2 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.
