Case Name: Burnice DOUGLAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Willie Eagleton, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-04
Citations: 67 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 03-6393
Parties: Burnice DOUGLAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Willie Eagleton, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
Burnice DOUGLAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Willie Eagleton, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6393.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2003.
Decided June 4, 2003.
Burnice Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Burnice Douglas, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Habeas corpus relief may be granted only if the state court's decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or the state court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 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). This Court may only grant a certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The relevant inquiry is whether " 'reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.' " Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Douglas 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.