Case ID: f-appx_109/html/0576-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tony Ray ALDRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry MCMASTER, York County, South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 04-6593.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 16, 2004.
    Decided: Sept. 21, 2004.
    Tony Ray Aldridge, Appellant pro se.
    Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Tony Aldridge, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 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 Aldridge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for appointment of counsel, for the test of D.N.A. fingerprinting, and for production of documents. 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