Case ID: f-appx_275/html/0239-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Fitzgerald LIGHTNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-6368.
    United States Court of Appeals, Foux’th Circuit.
    Submitted: April 24, 2008.
    Decided: April 30, 2008.
    David Fitzgerald Lightner, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM:

David Fitzgerald Lightner seeks to appeal the distxict court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appeal-able unless a cix’cuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A cex’tifieate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the x’ecord and conclude that Lightner 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.