Case Name: Gary Phillip BROGDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-31
Citations: 182 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 06-6236
Parties: Gary Phillip BROGDON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
Gary Phillip BROGDON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6236.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2006.
Decided: May 31, 2006.
Gary Phillip Brogdon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gary Phillip Brogdon seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Respondents and dismissing as untimely Brogdon's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 mil 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brogdon 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.