Case Name: Donald E. ROBINSON, Petitioner- Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-09
Citations: 142 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 05-6536
Parties: Donald E. ROBINSON, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
Donald E. ROBINSON, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 05-6536.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 31, 2005.
Decided Sept. 9, 2005.
Donald E. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donald E. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 habeas corpus 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 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Moreover, as to the portions of the magistrate judge's report to which Robinson failed to object after being warned of the consequences of such a failure, appellate review is waived. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir.1984). 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