Court Opinion

ID: 1018867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:26:58.585835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:45.693633
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-7369

ALGENE CLARK,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JENNIFER LANGLEY,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-04-1139-1)

Submitted:   February 22, 2006             Decided:   March 29, 2006

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Algene Clark, Appellant Pro Se.  Sandra Wallace Smith, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Algene Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the recommendation to deny as untimely his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition.              This 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    both    that   the    district    court’s     assessment   of   his

constitutional      claims      is    debatable    or    wrong    and   that    any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. 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 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Clark 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 -