Case Name: Robert WHITEHEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden of ECI; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-13
Citations: 145 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 05-6772
Parties: Robert WHITEHEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden of ECI; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
Robert WHITEHEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden of ECI; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-6772.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 23, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 13, 2005.
Robert Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Whitehead seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 mil 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Whitehead has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Whitehead's motion for appointment of counsel, 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