Case Name: Wayne Elliott WILKERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-17
Citations: 293 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 08-7128
Parties: Wayne Elliott WILKERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 293
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Wayne Elliott WILKERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-7128.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 17, 2008.
Wayne Elliott Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Elliott Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Wilkerson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wilkerson's motion for 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.