Case ID: f-appx_238/html/0989-02.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

Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David ROBINSON, Respondent-Appellee. Gregory A. Richardson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David Robinson, Respondent-Appellee.
    Nos. 06-7975, 06-7976.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 27, 2007.
    Decided: Sept. 4, 2007.
    Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion for a stay. The order dismissing the action 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 Richardson has not made the requisite showing.

We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Richardson’s motion for a stay and granting him an eleven-day extension of time to file a response to the state’s motion to dismiss. Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs. Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir.2003) (providing review standard for an extension of time). 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. 
      
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).