Case Name: Geoffrey R. PAYNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of the McCormick Correctional Institution; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-07
Citations: 199 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 06-6714
Parties: Geoffrey R. PAYNE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of the McCormick Correctional Institution; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 199
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
Geoffrey R. PAYNE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of the McCormick Correctional Institution; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-6714.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 7, 2006.
Geoffrey R. Payne, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Geoffrey R. Payne 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 Payne 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.