UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6148
RA MAAT PTAH ATUM, a/k/a James H. Jordan,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:05-cv-03361-CMC)
Submitted: May 10, 2007 Decided: May 15, 2007
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ra Maat Ptah Atum, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Melody
Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ra Maat Ptah Atum 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 Atum has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Atum’s motions
for discovery, to compel the clerk to reply, to appear before the
court, for access to a law library, and to be removed from the
custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. 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 -