Curtis Witherspoon v. Susan White, No. 13-6737 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6737 CURTIS ANTHONY WITHERSPOON, Petitioner Appellant, v. SUSAN R. WHITE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00352-RJC) Submitted: August 26, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Anthony Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Anthony Witherspoon seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability ( COA ). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A COA will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment debatable or wrong. (2000); Miller-El of the constitutional claims is See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief 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. Here, the district court denied relief on procedural grounds. In particular, Witherspoon s petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have independently reviewed the Witherspoon record requisite appeal. and conclude showing for a that COA. has Accordingly, we not made the dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.