Court Opinion

ID: 1029851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 08:04:48.18857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:30.736736
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 09-6927

DONALD WIMBUSH,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

LEROY    CARTLEGE,      Warden     of     McCormick      Correctional
Institution,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:08-cv-03067-DCN)

Submitted:    August 20, 2009                 Decided:      August 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and      MICHAEL,      Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wimbush, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Donald Wimbush seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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 appealability.                   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 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    Wimbush     has    not    made    the   requisite     showing.

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

                                           2