Case Name: Troy GOODMAN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-09
Citations: 173 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 05-7245
Parties: Troy GOODMAN, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Troy GOODMAN, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7245.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2006.
Decided March 9, 2006.
Troy Goodman, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen War-field, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Troy Goodman, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the 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 § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabili ty. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Goodman 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.