                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 08-6088



ROGER SYNTELL LEGETTE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


ANTHONY PADULA, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:07-cv-00633-HMH)


Submitted:   May 29, 2008                  Decided:   June 4, 2008


Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roger Syntell Legette, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,
Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Roger    Syntell   Legette   seeks     to    appeal   the    district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely.

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 Legette 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 -
