                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-6446



ABEL CONTREARS MEDINA,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


THEODIS   BECK,  Secretary,   North   Carolina
Department of Corrections; SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,
Administrator,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District       Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.        James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00872-JAB)


Submitted:   July 26, 2006                 Decided:   August 14, 2006


Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Abel   Contrears   Medina   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 Medina 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 -
