Moore v. Polk ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6330
    CHARLES C. MOORE, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    MARVIN L. POLK,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:07-hc-02021-BO)
    Submitted:   October 22, 2008               Decided:   November 18, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles C. Moore, Jr., 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Charles C. Moore, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order 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 Moore 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: 08-6330

Judges: Niemeyer, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 11/18/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024