Ronald G. Whiteside v. Scotland County Superior Court

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6662
RONALD G. WHITESIDE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SCOTLAND COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Wallace W. Dixon,
Magistrate Judge. (1:10-cv-00386-WWD-WWD)
Submitted: August 15, 2011 Decided: September 20, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald G. Whiteside, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald G. Whiteside seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition, finding it was untimely, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)
(2006), and denying a post-judgment motion seeking to “address
the limit.”*
* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by
the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When
relief is denied on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
that the magistrate judge’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When relief is denied on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Whiteside has not made the requisite showing.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for appointment of
counsel 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 of 3 --