Charles Watson v. Brad Perritt, No. 14-6926 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6926 CHARLES WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRAD PERRITT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-hc-02221-BO) Submitted: October 24, 2014 Decided: November 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. (2012) The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid 363, v. Angelone, certificate of 369 F.3d appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. 2004). absent issue A “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El 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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 2 deny his motion for consideration as moot, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral legal contentions are before this and argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials court 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.
