Case Name: James Calvin ADDISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-03
Citations: 108 F. App'x 115
Docket Number: No. 04-6992
Parties: James Calvin ADDISON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
James Calvin ADDISON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-6992.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2004.
Decided Sept. 3, 2004.
James Calvin Addison, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Calvin Addison seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable un less 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Addison 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
. We note that the district court's dismissal was without prejudice.