Court Opinion

ID: 1013898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:08:23.187219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:19.865797
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7581

NATHANIEL H. WILLIAMSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THEODIS   BECK,  Secretary,     North   Carolina
Department of Correction,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-341-1)

Submitted:   April 28, 2004                  Decided:   July 27, 2004

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel H. Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Nathaniel H. Williamson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2254 proceeding 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 (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 Williamson has not made the requisite showing.               Accordingly,

we deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, 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