Case Name: Earl Douglas FIELDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 225 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 07-6084
Parties: Earl Douglas FIELDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 108–108

Head Matter:
Earl Douglas FIELDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-6084.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2007.
Decided: May 2, 2007.
Earl Douglas Fields, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Earl Douglas Fields seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 Fields 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.