Case Name: Steven Lee UPDIKE, Petitioner- Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Robert Francis McDonnell, Attorney General of the State of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-16
Citations: 303 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 08-7269
Parties: Steven Lee UPDIKE, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Robert Francis McDonnell, Attorney General of the State of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
Steven Lee UPDIKE, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Robert Francis McDonnell, Attorney General of the State of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 08-7269.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 5, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 16, 2008.
Steven Lee Updike, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven Lee Updike 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 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 Updike 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.