Case Name: Ervin ALLISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond COLLERAN; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-07
Citations: 174 F. App'x 774
Docket Number: No. 05-7801
Parties: Ervin ALLISON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Raymond COLLERAN; Henry McMas-ter, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appel-lees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 774–775

Head Matter:
Ervin ALLISON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Raymond COLLERAN; Henry McMas-ter, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appel-lees.
No. 05-7801.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2006.
Decided April 7, 2006.
Ervin Allison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney Gen eral, Columbia South Carolina; Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, Office of the Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ervin Allison seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Respondents and dismissing as untimely Allison's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. 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