Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-24
Citations: 285 F. App'x 60
Docket Number: No. 08-6262
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 60–60

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6262.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2008.
Decided: June 24, 2008.
Maurice Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Johnson 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.