Case Name: Alonzo R. BRINKLEY, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-25
Citations: 328 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 09-6551
Parties: Alonzo R. BRINKLEY, II, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
Alonzo R. BRINKLEY, II, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6551.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2009.
Decided: June 25, 2009.
Donald Mitchell Brown, Jr., Brown & Associates, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alonzo R. Brinkley, II, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Brinkley's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Brinkley 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.