Watson v. Beck , 83 F. App'x 559 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7597
STEVEN ANTWONE WATSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp,
Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-853-1)
Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Antwone Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven Antwone Watson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2000).* The order is appealable only if 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 his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Watson’s motion for 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
*
The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s exercise of
jurisdiction in the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)
(2000).
2