Court Opinion

ID: 1019056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:29:42.282235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:39.834292
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7850

RODNEY COLEMAN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney
General for South Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-05-683-5)

Submitted: March 30, 2006                   Decided: April 10, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.     Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Rodney Coleman, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and dismissing Coleman’s 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 Coleman

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coleman’s

motion for 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 -