                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-6667



JEROME WORKMAN,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Warden at Perry Correctional Institution,

                  Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (9:07-cv-02190-GRA)


Submitted:   September 16, 2008         Decided:   September 22, 2008


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerome Workman, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Columbia,
South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jerome Workman 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    Workman   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
