Case Name: Mark Bruce WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General; Willie E. Eagleton, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-05
Citations: 95 F. App'x 16
Docket Number: No. 03-7625
Parties: Mark Bruce WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General; Willie E. Eagleton, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 16–17

Head Matter:
Mark Bruce WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General; Willie E. Eagleton, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-7625.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 24, 2004.
Decided April 5, 2004.
Mark Bruce Williams, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Mark Bruce Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation 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(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 Williams 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