Case Name: Andrew W. BRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-25
Citations: 234 F. App'x 148
Docket Number: No. 06-7809
Parties: Andrew W. BRIGHT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 148–149

Head Matter:
Andrew W. BRIGHT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-7809.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 27, 2007.
Decided: July 25, 2007.
Andrew W. Bright, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K. McFar land, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Andrew W. Bright 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 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive 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, 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 Bright 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.