Williams v. Wood

Filing 920070829

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6484

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DON WOOD, Superintendent; Secretary of Corrections, THEODIS BECK, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00750-JAB)

Submitted:

August 23, 2007

Decided:

August 29, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without prejudice on all claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and also dismissing as frivolous Claims 1 and 2 with prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 28 U.S.C.

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

§ 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion

for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion to stay state court proceedings, and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process.

- 2 -

DISMISSED

- 3 -