Case Name: Carlos E. GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-29
Citations: 137 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 05-6176
Parties: Carlos E. GONZALEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 137
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
Carlos E. GONZALEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6176.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2005.
Decided: June 29, 2005.
Carlos E. Gonzalez, Appellant pro se. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carlos E. Gonzalez, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 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 Gonzalez 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