UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7975
GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID ROBINSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 06-7976
GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID ROBINSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:04-cv-00424-MHL)
Submitted: August 27, 2007 Decided: September 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s orders* dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition and denying his motion for a stay. The order dismissing
the action 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 Richardson has
not made the requisite showing.
We also find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Richardson’s motion for a stay and granting
him an eleven-day extension of time to file a response to the
state’s motion to dismiss. Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst
Pregnancy Ctrs. Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (providing
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 3 -
review standard for an extension of time). 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
- 4 -