Case Name: Denise HARGROVE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Laura OVERSTREET, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-17
Citations: 304 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 08-7093
Parties: Denise HARGROVE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Laura OVERSTREET, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 152–152

Head Matter:
Denise HARGROVE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Laura OVERSTREET, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-7093.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 11, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 17, 2008.
Denise Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Denise Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely her 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 Hargrove 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.