Case Name: Ahmad Clarence GARLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edsel T. TAYLOR, Warden Mac C1, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; Jon Ozmint, Director SCDC, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-30
Citations: 279 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 08-6342
Parties: Ahmad Clarence GARLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edsel T. TAYLOR, Warden Mac C1, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; Jon Ozmint, Director SCDC, Respondents.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Ahmad Clarence GARLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edsel T. TAYLOR, Warden Mac C1, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; Jon Ozmint, Director SCDC, Respondents.
No. 08-6342.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2008.
Decided: May 30, 2008.
Ahmad Clarence Garland, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ahmad Clarence Garland seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 dispositive procedural ruling by the district court 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 Garland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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.