Case Name: Uganda WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-02
Citations: 283 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 07-6903
Parties: Uganda WILSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
Uganda WILSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6903.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 19, 2008.
Decided: July 2, 2008.
Uganda Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Uganda Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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.