Case Name: Mekiel MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-24
Citations: 312 F. App'x 527
Docket Number: No. 07-6552
Parties: Mekiel MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 527–527

Head Matter:
Mekiel MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-6552.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 11, 2009.
Decided: Feb. 24, 2009.
John Dewey Elliott; John Christopher Mills, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mekiel Mitchell 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 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 483-84, 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 Mitchell 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