Ervin v. Rushton , 193 F. App'x 192 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6289
    WILLIE ERVIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    COLIE   RUSHTON,   Warden;  HENRY    MCMASTER,
    Attorney General for South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (6:04-cv-23176-GRA)
    Submitted: July 25, 2006                    Decided: August 1, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Willie Ervin, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Willie Ervin 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
     (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 Ervin 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: 06-6289

Citation Numbers: 193 F. App'x 192

Judges: Williams, Motz, Traxler

Filed Date: 8/1/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024