Case Name: Johnny DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Collie RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-04
Citations: 178 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 05-7795
Parties: Johnny DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Collie RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Johnny DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Collie RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7795.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2006.
Decided: May 4, 2006.
Johnny Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting 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(e)(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 is 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 Davis 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