Case Name: Anthony Joseph RHUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas P. TAYLOR, Warden of Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-29
Citations: 136 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 05-6186
Parties: Anthony Joseph RHUE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Douglas P. TAYLOR, Warden of Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
Anthony Joseph RHUE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Douglas P. TAYLOR, Warden of Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6186.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2005.
Decided: June 29, 2005.
Anthony Joseph Rhue, Appellant pro se. Samuel Creighton Waters, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Joseph Rhue seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 that the district court's assessment of 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, 336-38, 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 Rhue 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