Case Name: Richard Aaron BLANKENSHIP, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-13
Citations: 373 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 09-6640
Parties: Richard Aaron BLANKENSHIP, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
Richard Aaron BLANKENSHIP, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-6640.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 1, 2010.
Decided: April 13, 2010.
Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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. See 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 Blankenship 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.