Case Name: Sammie STROMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Calvin Anthony, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 04-7508
Parties: Sammie STROMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Calvin Anthony, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
Sammie STROMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Calvin Anthony, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-7508.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 9, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 17, 2004.
Sammie Stroman, Appellant pro se.
Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sammie Stroman seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge in part and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 Stroman 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