Case Name: Sandy BURGESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-07
Citations: 157 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 05-7242
Parties: Sandy BURGESS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 623–623

Head Matter:
Sandy BURGESS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7242.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided Dec. 7, 2005.
Sandy Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sandy Burgess seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burgess 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