                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 08-6744



RODNEY STEPHON HAIRSTON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


J. HAYNES, Superintendent,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00403-WO-PTS)


Submitted:   September 26, 2008            Decided:   October 17, 2008


Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rodney Stephon Hairston, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Rodney Stephon Hairston 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 Hairston has

not made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny Hairston’s

motion for 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
