Case Name: Abel Contrears MEDINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections; Sherwood R. McCabe, Administrator, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-14
Citations: 194 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 06-6446
Parties: Abel Contrears MEDINA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections; Sherwood R. McCabe, Administrator, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Abel Contrears MEDINA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections; Sherwood R. McCabe, Administrator, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-6446.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 26, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 14, 2006.
Abel Contrears Medina, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Abel Contrears Medina seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 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 that Medina 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