                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-7433



DONNA JEAN DUGGINS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Russell A. Eliason,
Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-01054-RAE)


Submitted:   March 25, 2008                 Decided:   March 27, 2008


Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donna Jean Duggins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Donna Jean Duggins seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order dismissing as untimely her 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 Duggins has not

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

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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



     *
      This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of
the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

                               - 2 -
