                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6188



MAURICE CLACK,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE   M.  JOHNSON,   Director   of   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00445-WDK)


Submitted: April 26, 2007                        Decided: May 3, 2007


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Maurice Clack, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Maurice Clack 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 Clack 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 -
