Case Name: Kevin Eric KESTERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-17
Citations: 365 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: No. 09-7368
Parties: Kevin Eric KESTERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 365
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
Kevin Eric KESTERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-7368.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Feb. 17, 2010.
Kevin Eric Kesterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Eric Kesterson 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 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 disposi-tive 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 Kesterson 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.