Watson v. Beck , 83 F. App'x 559 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7597
    STEVEN ANTWONE WATSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THEODIS BECK,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Paul Trevor Sharp,
    Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-853-1)
    Submitted:   December 11, 2003         Decided:     December 23, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven Antwone Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Steven Antwone Watson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000).* The order is appealable only if 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
    Watson has not made the requisite showing.            Accordingly, we deny
    Watson’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
    *
    The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s exercise of
    jurisdiction in the case in accordance with 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c)
    (2000).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7597

Citation Numbers: 83 F. App'x 559

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024