UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7889



MARK MELTON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


COLIE   RUSHTON,  Warden;      HENRY   MCMASTER,
Attorney General,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-01894-CMC)


Submitted:   March 12, 2007                 Decided:   March 27, 2007


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark Melton, Appellant Pro se


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Mark C. Melton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

partially accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely Melton’s 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 Melton 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




                                    2