Case Name: Kenneth E. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lawrence SOLOMON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-28
Citations: 187 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 06-6093
Parties: Kenneth E. ROBINSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lawrence SOLOMON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
Kenneth E. ROBINSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lawrence SOLOMON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6093.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2006.
Decided: June 28, 2006.
Kenneth E. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth E. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Respondent and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny motion for appointment of counsel, 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