Case Name: Jerome COCHRANE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-28
Citations: 235 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 07-6718
Parties: Jerome COCHRANE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Jerome COCHRANE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-6718.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 17, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 28, 2007.
Jerome Cochrane, 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, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Cochrane seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a 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 sub stantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Cochrane 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.