Melvin Curtis Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, an appellant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When dismissal occurs on procedural grounds, the petitioner “must demonstrate both: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318,151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001).

Upon examination of Smith’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the record, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court correctly concluded the petition was untimely. See Smith v. Woodard, No. CA-00-914-5-F-3 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2002). *

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.