Case Name: Algene CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-29
Citations: 173 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 05-7369
Parties: Algene CLARK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jennifer LANGLEY, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 232–232

Head Matter:
Algene CLARK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jennifer LANGLEY, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7369.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 22, 2006.
Decided: March 29, 2006.
Algene Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace Smith, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Algene Clark seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation to deny as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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