Case Name: David Matthew McKINNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden of Red Onion State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-26
Citations: 289 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 08-6556
Parties: David Matthew McKINNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden of Red Onion State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
David Matthew McKINNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden of Red Onion State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6556.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2008.
David Matthew McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Matthew McKinney seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 as sessment 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, 587 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 McKinney 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.