UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6793



FRED FREEMAN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN, RIDGELAND
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (0:06-cv-02233)


Submitted:   November 15, 2007       Decided:   November 21, 2007


Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Fred Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel
Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Fred Freeman 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, 

, 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    Freeman   has   not    made    the   requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -