Case Name: Freddie Junior WELLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry Dargan McMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-03
Citations: 204 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 06-6868
Parties: Freddie Junior WELLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry Dargan McMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
Freddie Junior WELLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry Dargan McMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-6868.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.
Freddie Junior Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Freddie Junior Wells seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the 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 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 Wells 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.