Case Name: Rodney COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 174 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 05-7850
Parties: Rodney COLEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
Rodney COLEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7850.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2006.
Decided: April 10, 2006.
Rodney Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rodney Coleman, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Coleman's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any disposi-tive 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 rec ord and conclude that Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coleman's motion for 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