Case Name: Mark MELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-27
Citations: 222 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 06-7889
Parties: Mark MELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 273–273

Head Matter:
Mark MELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7889.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2007.
Decided: March 27, 2007.
Mark Melton, Appellant Pro se.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark C. Melton seeks to appeal the district court's order partially accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Melton's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 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. 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 Melton 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.