Willie Worley, Jr. v. Timothy McKoy, No. 10-6027 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6027 WILLIE D. WORLEY, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY MCKOY, Administrator, Franklin Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00484-GCM) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie D. Worley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie D. Worley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a constitutional prisoner substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2006). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of the 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). informal brief, Worley has failed to address the In his district court s finding that his § 2254 petition was untimely filed. Therefore, Worley has forfeited appellate review of the district court s ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). certificate appealability dispense of with oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny a the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.