Case Name: Anthony HOPKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WHITE, Warden, Broad River 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: 2005-06-17
Citations: 134 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 05-6488
Parties: Anthony HOPKINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William WHITE, Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
Anthony HOPKINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William WHITE, Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6488.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 9, 2005.
Decided June 17, 2005.
Anthony Hopkins, Appellant pro se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, Office of the Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 Hopkins 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