Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lightner v. State of North Carolina, 08-6368 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6368 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 30, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6368 DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00009-GCM) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
                                UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 08-6368



DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                  Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00009-GCM)


Submitted:     April 24, 2008                 Decided:   April 30, 2008


Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Fitzgerald Lightner, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           David Fitzgerald Lightner seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

untimely filed.    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 Lightner has

not made the requisite showing. 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




                               - 2 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer