Case Name: Earl C. PINCKNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, 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: 2005-12-15
Citations: 158 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 05-7194
Parties: Earl C. PINCKNEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
Earl C. PINCKNEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7194.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2005.
Decided Dec. 15, 2005.
Earl C. Pinckney, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Earl C. Pinckney seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition on the ground that it was untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pinckney has not shown error in the court's dispositive procedural ruling. 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