Case Name: Rodney Stephon HAIRSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-17
Citations: 297 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 08-6744
Parties: Rodney Stephon HAIRSTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Rodney Stephon HAIRSTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6744.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 17, 2008.
Rodney Stephon Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Stephon Hairston 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(e)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial 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 Hairston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hairston's motion for 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.