Williams v. Riley, No. 06-6459 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6459 MICHAEL EDWARD WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TIM RILEY, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. No. 06-7322 MICHAEL EDWARD WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TIM RILEY, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:05-cv-03082-GRA) Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 29, 2006 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Edward Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Edward Williams seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying his motion for extension of time to file a response to the state s motion for summary judgment and accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The orders are not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
