Frankie LordMaster v. Director of the DOC, No. 13-8016 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8016 FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER, f/k/a Jason Robert Goldader, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01305-JCC-IDD) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frankie Jae Lordmaster, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frankie Jae Lordmaster seeks to appeal the district court s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion for production of best evidence and original exhibits as moot. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The orders are not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 constitutional right. debatable claim of the denial of a Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lordmaster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lordmaster s motion to compel and motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.