Wilson v. Wood

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7970 KEITH D. WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DON WOOD, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00408-WLO) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely* and the court’s order denying Wilson’s motion for reconsideration. 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 Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and * The district court also found Wilson failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. - 2 - legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -