Case Name: Herman WINNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Derrick McFarland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-27
Citations: 207 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 06-7428
Parties: Herman WINNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Derrick McFarland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
Herman WINNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Derrick McFarland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7428.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 27, 2006.
Herman Winns, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Herman Winns 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 Winns 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.