UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-7757



JOHN T. WOOD,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


TOMMY KING, Superintendent,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Russell A. Eliason,
Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00413-RAE-1)


Submitted:   February 28, 2008              Decided: March 10, 2008


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John T. Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           John T. Wood seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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,

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wood has not

made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, 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 -