UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6484
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
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. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00750-JAB)
Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief without prejudice on all claims in his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) petition and also dismissing as frivolous Claims 1
and 2 with prejudice. 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
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 the motion
for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny the motion to stay state court proceedings, 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.
- 2 -
DISMISSED
- 3 -