Case Name: Ricky Raiszoner GARDNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-04
Citations: 127 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 04-7828
Parties: Ricky Raiszoner GARDNER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
Ricky Raiszoner GARDNER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7828.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2005.
Decided May 4, 2005.
Ricky Raiszoner Gardner, 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 WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ricky Raiszoner Gardner, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report 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 the district court's assessment of 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 Gardner 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