Tompkins v. Carroll , 280 F. App'x 294 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6133
    STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    T. CARROLL,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:06-hc-02226-BO)
    Submitted:    May 29, 2008                   Decided:   June 4, 2008
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Stuart     Wayne   Tompkins     seeks   to    appeal   the    district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.    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
    any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
    is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.                Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tompkins 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6133

Citation Numbers: 280 F. App'x 294

Judges: Traxler, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 6/4/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024