Case Name: James Robert STEVENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; South Carolina General Assembly; Calvin Anthony, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; 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: 2005-08-04
Citations: 140 F. App'x 506
Docket Number: No. 05-6434
Parties: James Robert STEVENSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; South Carolina General Assembly; Calvin Anthony, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
James Robert STEVENSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; South Carolina General Assembly; Calvin Anthony, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6434.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 27, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
James Robert Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Robert Stevenson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order 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. § 2258(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 Stevenson 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