UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7431
LONNIE LEE RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-3728-3-13BC)
Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2005
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lonnie Lee Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General, Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie Lee Richardson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
on the grounds that the petition was filed beyond the one-year
period allowed for such actions. 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 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, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson 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 -
Richardson v. Rushton
Combined Opinion