Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06740/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06740-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6740

JACK SIMPSON, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(3:06-cv-02629-DCN)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Simpson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH

CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6740 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/26/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
*

While the district judge appeared to indicate that Simpson

failed to timely file objections to the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation, we find that Simpson’s objections were timely

filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (e), 72(a); Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Given that the district court nonetheless

reviewed the record de novo, any error associated with the

timeliness of Simpson’s objections is harmless. See generally,

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jack Simpson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Simpson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

Appeal: 07-6740 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/26/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-6740 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/26/2007 Pg: 3 of 3