Case Name: Maurice CLACK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-03
Citations: 225 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 07-6188
Parties: Maurice CLACK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
Maurice CLACK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6188.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2007.
Decided: May 3, 2007.
Maurice Clack, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Clack seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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 dispos-itive 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 Clack 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.