Russell Moore v. Robert Stevenson, No. 11-6915 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6915 RUSSELL DARRYL MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:10-cv-01413-JMC) Submitted: November 3, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Darryl Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Russell court s order Darryl accepting Moore the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 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. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny the motions to authorize a transcript at the Government s expense and to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 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.
