Case Name: John PINCKNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of SCDC; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Anthony Padula, Warden of the Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-20
Citations: 258 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 07-6981
Parties: John PINCKNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of SCDC; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Anthony Padula, Warden of the Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
John PINCKNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of SCDC; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Anthony Padula, Warden of the Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-6981.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2007.
John Pinckney, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Pinckney seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 Pinckney 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.