Court Opinion

ID: 205341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-02-24 01:06:19+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:42.018508
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-7516

WILLIE JAMES ASBURY,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden Broad River Correctional
Institution,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (3:09-cv-02557-DCN)

Submitted:   February 10, 2011            Decided:   February 23, 2011

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie James Asbury, Appellant Pro Se.          James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia,          South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Willie      James    Asbury        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).                   When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard    by    demonstrating         that    reasonable        jurists      would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.               Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000);        see Miller-El      v.    Cockrell,        537    U.S.       322,   336-38

(2003).      When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                              Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.            We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Asbury 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

                                            2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3