Case Name: Marion GEDDIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC); Henry Dargan Mcmaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-25
Citations: 81 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 03-7070
Parties: Marion GEDDIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC); Henry Dargan Mcmaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
Marion GEDDIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC); Henry Dargan Mcmaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7070.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2003.
Decided Nov. 25, 2003.
Marion Geddis, pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Marion Geddis seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Geddis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap pealability 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