                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6148



RA MAAT PTAH ATUM, a/k/a James H. Jordan,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:05-cv-03361-CMC)


Submitted:   May 10, 2007                    Decided:   May 15, 2007


Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ra Maat Ptah Atum, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Melody
Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Ra Maat Ptah Atum 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Atum has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.      We also deny Atum’s motions

for discovery, to compel the clerk to reply, to appear before the

court, for access to a law library, and to be removed from the

custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections.                    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 -
