Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Grooms v. Johnson, 07-6805 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-6805 Visitors: 57
Filed: Sep. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6805 ROBERT L. GROOMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Director of Corrections; DORIS L. EWING, Court and Legal Office Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00228-jlk) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 10, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SH
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6805 ROBERT L. GROOMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Director of Corrections; DORIS L. EWING, Court and Legal Office Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00228-jlk) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 10, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Grooms, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert L. Grooms, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying without prejudice relief on his complaint styled as an action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Because the complaint raised habeas claims, we find the district court properly construed the claims as more appropriately presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Further, because Grooms has filed previous § 2254 petitions raising the same or similar claims, and this court has denied his application to file a successive § 2254 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), the action was properly dismissed as successive. 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer