Thaddeus Lockhart, a South Carolina prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).

The district court granted a certificate of appealability with respect to Lockhart’s claim that the district court erred in finding that his petition was untimely under the AEDPA. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court correctly concluded that Lockhart’s petition was untimely filed. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s findings on this issue on the reasoning of the district court. See Lockhart v. South Carolina, No. CA-03-0678-04-18BH (D.S.C. filed Nov. 21, 2003 & entered Nov. 24, 2003).

The district court declined to issue a certificate of appealability on Lockhart’s remaining claims. In these claims, he con *326 tends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Respondents on procedural grounds without considering the underlying merits of his petition and contends that the district court erroneously failed to resolve a discovery dispute. Lockhart cannot obtain a certificate of appealability as to these claims 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lock-hart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lockhart’s motion for a certificate of appealability as to his remaining claims and dismiss the appeal as to these claims.

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART