Case Name: Trevor JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-31
Citations: 142 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: Nos. 05-6151, 05-6425
Parties: Trevor JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 184–184

Head Matter:
Trevor JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 05-6151, 05-6425.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 31, 2005.
Trevor Jackson, Burkeville, VA, Pro se.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Trevor Jackson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order and order for reconsideration accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition on the ground that it is untimely. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has shown no error in the district court's procedural ruling. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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