Case Name: Nathaniel H. WILLIAMSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-27
Citations: 102 F. App'x 832
Docket Number: No. 03-7581
Parties: Nathaniel H. WILLIAMSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 832–833

Head Matter:
Nathaniel H. WILLIAMSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7581.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2004.
Decided: July 27, 2004.
Nathaniel EL Williamson, Appellant pro se.
Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nathaniel H. Williamson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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, 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 Williamson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, 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