UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7001
STANLEY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(3:08-cv-00798-HFF-JRM)
Submitted: August 20, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition for failure to prosecute and has filed an application for
an original writ of habeas corpus with this court under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2000).
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.
Although we are authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) to
exercise jurisdiction over original petitions for habeas corpus
relief, we are not required to do so and we typically decline to
exercise such jurisdiction and instead transfer the matter to the
appropriate district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(a). We will
2
not transfer a habeas corpus petition unless the transfer would
serve the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2000). We
conclude that a transfer of this matter would not be in the
interests of justice.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the
motion for an original writ of habeas corpus, 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
3