UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7918
JAMES F. SCHNEIDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
CALVIN ANTHONY; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY
MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-03-3197)
Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Schneider, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James F. Schneider, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition
as untimely. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7
(4th Cir. 2004). 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
the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the
district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Schneider has not shown the district court’s finding of
untimeliness to be debatable or wrong.* Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are
*
Schneider does not challenge the court’s finding of
untimeliness on appeal.
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -