Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07940/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07940-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Levern Cohen
Appellee
Larry Edward Hendricks
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7940

LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEVERN COHEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (3:08-cv-02445-DCN)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7940 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition

and denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. These

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that 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 Hendricks 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

Appeal: 09-7940 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 2