Case Name: Archie Lewis MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Clinton HOLT; Terry L. Harvell, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-02
Citations: 172 F. App'x 21
Docket Number: No. 05-7348
Parties: Archie Lewis MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Clinton HOLT; Terry L. Harvell, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 21–22

Head Matter:
Archie Lewis MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Clinton HOLT; Terry L. Harvell, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7348.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided March 2, 2006.
Archie Lewis Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Car olina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Archie Lewis Miller seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation 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 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 his constitutional claims are 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 Miller 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.