Case ID: f-appx_141/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Ervin MCGEE, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan OZMINT; Colie Rushton; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 05-6548.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.
    Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.
    James Ervin McGee, Jr., Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    
      Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

James Ervin McGee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McGee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED