Court Opinion

ID: 1017570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:06:46.123445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:24.542046
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7095

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DON  WOOD,   Superintendent; THEODIS BECK,
Secretary of North Carolina Department of
Corrections,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-05-481-1-FWB)

Submitted:   October 20, 2005             Decided:   October 31, 2005

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Stanley Lorenzo Williams 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

Williams has not made the requisite showing.              Accordingly, we deny

Williams’     motions    to   proceed    in     forma   pauperis   and   for   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 -