Court Opinion

ID: 1012905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:52:27.437163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:19.945252
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 04-6032

ARTHUR LEE WILLIAMS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

COLLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State
of South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-1724-2-17)

Submitted:   March 25, 2004                 Decided:   April 1, 2004

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Arthur Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s report 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 Williams 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 before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

                                                                     DISMISSED

                                    - 2 -