UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6459
MICHAEL EDWARD WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
TIM RILEY, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 06-7322
MICHAEL EDWARD WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
TIM RILEY, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:05-cv-03082-GRA)
Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 29, 2006
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Edward Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael Edward Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his motion for extension of time to file a
response to the state’s motion for summary judgment and accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The orders are 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 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 a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the 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
- 3 -