Timothy Royal King v. ROBERT SMITH, Superintendent

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6643
TIMOTHY ROYAL KING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ROBERT SMITH, Superintendent; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-440-5-BR)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 9, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Royal King, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Royal King seeks to appeal the district court’s
denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider judgment.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). The denial of a
Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas proceeding and
thus requires a certificate of appealability for appeal. Reid v.
Angelone, F.3d , 2004 WL 1119646, at *2-*5 (4th Cir. May
19, 2004) (No. 03-6146). 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 King 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.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --