Watkins v. Hathaway ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7855
    GREGORY WAYNE WATKINS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (5:08-hc-02049-H)
    Submitted:    January 14, 2010              Decided:   January 21, 2010
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory Wayne Watkins, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Gregory       Wayne       Watkins         seeks    to     appeal       the    district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006)
    petition.       The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or   judge   issues        a    certificate            of    appealability.              
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).                 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)         (2006).           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 Watkins has
    not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we deny Watkins’s
    motion    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7855

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 1/21/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024