Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McDonald v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    1) Gary Womack McDonald filed a habeas corpus petition that was denied by the district court. He sought to appeal the denial but required a certificate of appealability. 2) A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed McDonald's case and the record. 3) The panel concluded that McDonald did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, they denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6504

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Gary Womack McDonald filed a habeas corpus petition that was denied by the district court. He sought to appeal the denial but required a certificate of appealability. 2) A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed McDonald's case and the record. 3) The panel concluded that McDonald did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, they denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    McDonald v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Gary Womack McDonald filed a habeas corpus petition that was denied by the district court. He sought to appeal the denial but required a certificate of appealability. 2) A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed McDonald's case and the record. 3) The panel concluded that McDonald did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, they denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6504

    GARY WOMACK MCDONALD,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RAYMOND SMITH, Administrator Caswell
    Correctional Center,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-00362-JAB)

    Submitted: July 24, 2007

    Decided:

    July 31, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM,


    JR., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe
    DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Gary Womack McDonald seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    any

    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is


    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDonald has


    not made the requisite 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


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like