Case Name: Willie D. WORLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Timothy MCKOY, Administrator, Franklin Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-24
Citations: 371 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 10-6027
Parties: Willie D. WORLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Timothy MCKOY, Administrator, Franklin Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
Willie D. WORLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Timothy MCKOY, Administrator, Franklin Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6027.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 16, 2010.
Decided: March 24, 2010.
Willie D. Worley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie D. Worley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the distinct 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). In his informal brief, Worley has failed to address the district court's finding that his § 2254 petition was untimely filed. Therefore, Worley has forfeited appellate review of the district court's ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 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.