                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                           No. 07-7243



ROBERTA MOORE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; FORSYTH COUNTY,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Russell A. Eliason,
Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00997-RAE)


Submitted:   November 20, 2007           Decided:   November 29, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roberta Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Roberta Moore 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 Moore 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




     *
      The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

                               - 2 -
