
    Lonnie Lee RICHARDSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 04-7431.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
    Decided Jan. 19, 2005.
    Lonnie Lee Richardson, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Lee Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) on the grounds that the petition was filed beyond the one-year period allowed for such actions. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson 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.  