Derek Curtis v. Jeffery Newton, No. 14-6136 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6136 DEREK DION CURTIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JEFFERY L. NEWTON, Respondent - Appellee, and CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00827-CMH-TRJ) Submitted: June 23, 2014 Decided: August 21, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Dion Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derek order Curtis denying his seeks Fed. to R. appeal Civ. the P. district 60(b) court s motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. appealable § 2254 unless petition. circuit a (2012) justice certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 The or order judge is issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims 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 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny him leave to proceed 2 in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.
