Michael Bethea v. Department of Correction, No. 11-6980 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Dismissed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6980 MICHAEL ALEXANDER BETHEA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:09-cv-00770-MHL) Submitted: October 11, 2011 Decided: October 31, 2011 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Alexander Bethea, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Alexander Bethea seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s final order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. * This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). 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 constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 petition procedural states constitutional a right. ruling is debatable Slack, debatable, claim 529 of U.S. at the and that denial 484-85. the of We a have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bethea has not made certificate the of requisite showing. appealability and * Accordingly, dismiss the we deny appeal. a We Bethea consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
