
    Randy Scott BALLON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Don WOOD, Superintendent; Theodis Beck, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees. Randy Scott Ballon, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis Beck; Donald Wood, Respondents—Appellees.
    Nos. 07-6420, 07-7446.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 20, 2007.
    Decided: Nov. 28, 2007.
    Randy Scott Ballon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Randy Scott Ballon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions. The orders are 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, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the records and conclude that Ballon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeals. 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.  