Case Name: Jose German SOLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 225 F. App'x 109
Docket Number: No. 07-6035
Parties: Jose German SOLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
Jose German SOLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-6035.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2007.
Decided: May 2, 2007.
Jose German Solis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose German Solis seeks to appeal the magistrate judge'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 Solis 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.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).