Case Name: William J. CLAYBROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bobby SHEARIN, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-17
Citations: 356 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 09-7424
Parties: William J. CLAYBROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bobby SHEARIN, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 662–662

Head Matter:
William J. CLAYBROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bobby SHEARIN, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-7424.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 23, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 17, 2009.
William J. Claybrooks, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William J. Claybrooks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying 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 ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Clay-brooks 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.