Case Name: Jack Arnold McINTYRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Molony Condon, 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: 2003-07-30
Citations: 71 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 03-6467
Parties: Jack Arnold McINTYRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 207–207

Head Matter:
Jack Arnold McINTYRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6467.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2003.
Decided July 30, 2003.
Jack Arnold McIntyre, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jack Arnold McIntyre seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. § 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McIntyre 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.