Case Name: Gregory D. BROOKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Dir., Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-20
Citations: 290 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 08-6534
Parties: Gregory D. BROOKINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Dir., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 290
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Gregory D. BROOKINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Dir., Respondent.
No. 08-6534.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 14, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 20, 2008.
Gregory D. Brookins, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Donald John Zel-enka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gregory D. Brookins 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 Brookins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Brookins' motion to amend his brief, 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.