UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7028
WILLIAM F. BASKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General for South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-04-2220-4)
Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Baskins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William F. Baskins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as time-barred and, in the
alternative, on the merits. This 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. 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 Baskins 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
*
Baskins did not take issue with the district court’s
timeliness determination in his informal brief on appeal, so he has
waived review of that portion of the district court’s decision.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We have also carefully reviewed the
district court’s disposition of Baskins’ ineffective assistance of
counsel claim and would not find the court’s rejection of that
claim to be debatable or wrong.
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -