John Wood v. Tommy King
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOHN T. WOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TOMMY KING, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00413-RAE-1)
February 28, 2008
Decided: March 10, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John T. Wood, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John T. Wood 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." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by 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 Wood 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?