Case Name: Ronnie R. LITTLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sherwood R. MCCABE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-17
Citations: 154 F. App'x 377
Docket Number: No. 05-6840
Parties: Ronnie R. LITTLE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sherwood R. MCCABE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 377–377

Head Matter:
Ronnie R. LITTLE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sherwood R. MCCABE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6840.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 26, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2005.
Ronnie R. Little, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie R. Little seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Little has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Little's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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