Case Name: Donna Jean DUGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-27
Citations: 271 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 07-7433
Parties: Donna Jean DUGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
Donna Jean DUGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-7433.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2008.
Decided: March 27, 2008.
Donna Jean Duggins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donna Jean Duggins seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 Duggins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).