UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6128
BILLY WATKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
W. M. OAKLEY, Sheriff of Durham County; STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 03-6129
BILLY WATKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILL OAKLEY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CA-02-809-1, CA-02-993-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003
Before WIDENER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
On September 5, 2002, Billy Watkins filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000) petition. The district court entered orders noting
deficiencies in Watkins’ pleadings. Watkins filed a notice of
appeal, creating appeal No. 03-6128. On November 14, 2002, Watkins
filed a second 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which the district court,
by orders dated November 14, 2002, and December 3, 2002, dismissed
as redundant of his September 5, 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Watkins filed a second notice of appeal, creating appeal No. 03-
6129.
As to appeal No. 03-6128, this court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2000). Watkins’ appeal in this
case is timely only as to the district court’s deficiency orders,
which are neither final orders, nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
As to appeal No. 03-6129, Watkins appeals the district court’s
orders, dated November 14, 2002, and December 3, 2002, dismissing
his November 14, 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as redundant of
his September 5, 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Watkins cannot
appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
3
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas petitioner 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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watkins has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss this appeal as meritless.
We deny Watkins’ motion to deconsolidate these appeals. 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
4