Case Name: Gregory Wayne WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 361 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 09-7855
Parties: Gregory Wayne WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
Gregory Wayne WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7855.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 21, 2010.
Gregory Wayne Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Wayne Watkins seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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 rea sonable 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 Watkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watkins's motion for 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.