Case ID: f-appx_66/html/0517-01.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

Dwight E. HARMON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-6430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2003.
    Decided June 18, 2003.
    Dwight E. Harmon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Dwight E. Harmon, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from a final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harmon 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.