Case Name: Rodney Moucell JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Jonathan E. Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-30
Citations: 174 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 05-7914
Parties: Rodney Moucell JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Jonathan E. Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
Rodney Moucell JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Jonathan E. Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7914.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 30, 2006.
Rodney Moucell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General; Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rodney Moucell Jones, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Jones' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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