Case Name: Dwayne DELESTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 234 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 07-6130
Parties: Dwayne DELESTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
Dwayne DELESTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6130.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2007.
Decided: July 27, 2007.
Dwayne Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Deleston seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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 Deleston 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.