White v. Hardy , 242 F. App'x 5 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6171
ANTHONY WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JAMES HARDY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02051-D)
Submitted: July 11, 2007 Decided: September 14, 2007
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony White, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony White seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and subsequent post-
judgment motions 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 White has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny White’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
Although the district court characterized White’s post-
judgment motions as arising pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), they
should have been construed under Rule 59(e). See Dove v. CODESCO,
569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). However,
this error by the district court does not affect our disposition of
this appeal.
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -