Court Opinion

ID: 1018838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:26:39.597845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:39.149263
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7914

RODNEY MOUCELL JONES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JONATHAN E. OZMINT,
Director of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney
General of South Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-05-865-0)

Submitted: March 23, 2006                   Decided: March 30, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Moucell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General; Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Rodney Moucell Jones, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the   district   court’s    order   accepting    the    magistrate   judge’s

recommendation to dismiss Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition

as untimely filed.      An appeal may not be taken from the final order

in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Jones 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

                                    - 2 -