Case Name: Hayes MALLOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-05
Citations: 349 F. App'x 831
Docket Number: No. 09-6746
Parties: Hayes MALLOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 349
Pages: 831–832

Head Matter:
Hayes MALLOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-6746.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 5, 2009.
Hayes Malloy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hayes Malloy 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 certifícate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 Mal-loy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.