Case Name: Winfred CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster; William White, Warden of the Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-17
Citations: 235 F. App'x 983
Docket Number: No. 07-6453
Parties: Winfred CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster; William White, Warden of the Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 983–983

Head Matter:
Winfred CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster; William White, Warden of the Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6453.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 8, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 17, 2007.
Winfred Causey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Winfred Causey, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 Causey 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.