Case Name: James A. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-25
Citations: 353 F. App'x 862
Docket Number: No. 09-7579
Parties: James A. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 353
Pages: 862–863

Head Matter:
James A. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7579.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 25, 2009.
James A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James A. Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 dispos-itive 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 Smith 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.