Case ID: f-appx_213/html/0209-01.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

Bryant MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. Bryant Moore, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    Nos. 06-7765, 06-7874.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 22, 2006.
    Decided: Jan. 22, 2007.
    Bryant Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    
      Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Bryant Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 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, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion seeking issuance of a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.