Case Name: Willie B. BROWN, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-24
Citations: 234 F. App'x 144
Docket Number: No. 06-7995
Parties: Willie B. BROWN, III, PetitionerAppellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
Willie B. BROWN, III, PetitionerAppellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-7995.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2007.
Decided: July 24, 2007.
Willie B. Brown, III, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit. Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Willie B. Brown, III seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 dispos-itive 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 Brown 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.