Bass v. Hardy , 235 F. App'x 86 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6319
    SALADIN BASS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES HARDY, Superintendent, Nash Correctional
    Institution,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-00381-JAB)
    Submitted: July 24, 2007                    Decided:   July 30, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Saladin Bass, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Saladin Bass 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 Bass has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
    proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 07-6319

Citation Numbers: 235 F. App'x 86

Judges: Wilkinson, Traxler, Duncan

Filed Date: 7/30/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024