Case Name: John W. HEARNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keith DAVIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-06
Citations: 325 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 09-6101
Parties: John W. HEARNE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Keith DAVIS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
John W. HEARNE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Keith DAVIS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6101.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2009.
Decided: May 6, 2009.
John W. Hearne, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Conrad Williamson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond. Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John W. Hearne seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Hearne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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.
Both parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).