Case Name: Charles Edward EBRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, V.D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-15
Citations: 115 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 04-7161
Parties: Charles Edward EBRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, V.D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Charles Edward EBRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, V.D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7161.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2004.
Decided Dec. 15, 2004.
Charles Edward Ebron, Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles Edward Ebron, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order 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 habeas corpus 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 Ebron 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
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).