Case Name: Anthony Bernard BURNSIDE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-26
Citations: 164 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 05-7807
Parties: Anthony Bernard BURNSIDE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
Anthony Bernard BURNSIDE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7807.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 19, 2006.
Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
Anthony Bernard Burnside, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Bernard Burnside, a South Carolina inmate, 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 appeal-able 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burnside 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