Court Opinion

ID: 1022468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:22:44.502439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:07.786193
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7970

KEITH D. WILSON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DON  WOOD,   Superintendent;    THEODIS   BECK,
Secretary of Corrections,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00408-WLO)

Submitted: April 26, 2007                         Decided: May 2, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Keith Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely* and the court’s

order denying Wilson’s motion for reconsideration.            The orders are

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     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 Wilson has not

made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal.      We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

      *
      The district court also found Wilson failed to file specific
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

                                   - 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                              - 3 -