Case Name: Glen Monroe AUSTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James HARDY, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-04
Citations: 272 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 07-7414
Parties: Glen Monroe AUSTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James HARDY, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
Glen Monroe AUSTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James HARDY, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7414.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2008.
Decided: April 4, 2008.
Glen Monroe Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Glen Monroe Austin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. 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 magistrate judge is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the magistrate judge 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 Austin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.