Case Name: Roger Syntell LEGETTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony PADULA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-04
Citations: 280 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 08-6088
Parties: Roger Syntell LEGETTE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony PADULA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 280
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
Roger Syntell LEGETTE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony PADULA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2008.
Decided: June 4, 2008.
Roger Syntell Legette, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roger Syntell Legette 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 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 Legette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.