Case Name: Billy AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-24
Citations: 327 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 09-6290
Parties: Billy AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 327
Pages: 406–406

Head Matter:
Billy AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-6290.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2009.
Decided: June 24, 2009.
Billy Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Billy Austin seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely. 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 dis-positive 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 Austin 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.