Court Opinion

ID: 1019200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:32:08.716274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:30:49.251564
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7883

DAVID EUGENE WASHINGTON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THEODIS   BECK,  Secretary,     North   Carolina
Department of Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-05-361-1)

Submitted: April 27, 2006                          Decided: May 4, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Eugene Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

             David Eugene Washington seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 (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

Washington has not made the requisite showing.                Accordingly, we

deny Washington’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal,

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 -