From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Brooks

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 3, 2011
452 F. App'x 407 (4th Cir. 2011)

Summary

denying summary judgment as to deliberate indifference to serious medical need, based on plaintiff's evidence that he requested eye glasses but was ignored

Summary of this case from Shaw v. Burlington Cnty. Corr.

Opinion

No. 11-6528 No. 11-6738

11-03-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOESTILLES DEMARCO BROOKS, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOESTILLES DEMARCO BROOKS, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant.

Joestilles DeMarco Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00092-1; 3:05-cv-00163)

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joestilles DeMarco Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Joestilles DeMarco Brooks seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing Brooks' petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

These orders are not appealable absent a certificate of appealability issued by the district court or a circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). 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 of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 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 procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 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 Brooks has not made the requisite showing as to either order. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss these appeals. 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


Summaries of

United States v. Brooks

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 3, 2011
452 F. App'x 407 (4th Cir. 2011)

denying summary judgment as to deliberate indifference to serious medical need, based on plaintiff's evidence that he requested eye glasses but was ignored

Summary of this case from Shaw v. Burlington Cnty. Corr.
Case details for

United States v. Brooks

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOESTILLES DEMARCO…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 3, 2011

Citations

452 F. App'x 407 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Shaw v. Burlington Cnty. Corr.

Therefore, the Court denies Defendants' request for summary judgment on this claim. Accord Tormasi, 452 F.…