Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0083-01.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

Willie J. OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; George Hagan, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 07-6373.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 24, 2007.
    Decided: July 30, 2007.
    Willie J. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Willie J. Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (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 record and conclude that Owens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Owens’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Owens’ motion for DNA testing and 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.