Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Michael Girrard Grooms v. Edward W. Murray, Director of The Virginia Department of Corrections, 42 F.3d 1385, 4th Cir. (1994)
Michael Girrard Grooms v. Edward W. Murray, Director of The Virginia Department of Corrections, 42 F.3d 1385, 4th Cir. (1994)
3d 1385
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-93-685)
Michael Girrard Grooms, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.
E.D.N.C.
DISMISSED.
Before RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district
court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses
that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable
cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.*
Grooms v. Murray, No. CA-93-685 (E.D. Va. Jan. 20, 1994). 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.
2
DISMISSED.
We agree that Grooms' ineffective assistance claims fail the test of Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Grooms' remaining claims are procedurally
barred because he failed to present those claims in his first state habeas corpus
petition, see Va.Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-654(B)(2) (Michie 1992), and because he
failed to show cause and prejudice for his default. See Bassette v. Thompson,
915 F.2d 932, 937 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 982 (1991). Finally,
we grant Grooms' motion to file an amended informal brief