Case Name: Bruce MATHIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Director, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-28
Citations: 298 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 08-6994
Parties: Bruce MATHIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Director, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 281–281

Head Matter:
Bruce MATHIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Director, Respondent.
No. 08-6994.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 28, 2008.
Bruce Mathis, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Mathis 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. § 2253(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 Mathis 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.