Court Opinion

ID: 1017982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:13:16.462199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:54.404263
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7665

TITUS SMITH,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

OSCAR FAULKENBERRY, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General for the State of South
Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-05-954)

Submitted: December 15, 2005              Decided:   December 22, 2005

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General, Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Titus Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as

untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).                   The

order is 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 (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 Smith 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 -