Roy W. Arrowood v. ROBERT H. MAUNEY, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6056
ROY W. ARROWOOD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT H. MAUNEY, Warden; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina; WARDEN, Northside
Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:06-cv-02158-TLW)
Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy W. Arrowood, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Roy W. Arrowood seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and
the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. These orders
are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). 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 Arrowood 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
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --