Jacobs v. Beck , 115 F. App'x 146 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7419
CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE JACOBS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK, Secretary North Carolina
Department of Correction,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-1091-1)
Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 16, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Dewayne Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Dewayne Jacobs seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) as untimely. 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 Jacobs has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -