Case Name: James E. POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-25
Citations: 133 F. App'x 57
Docket Number: No. 05-6220
Parties: James E. POWELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 57–58

Head Matter:
James E. POWELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6220.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2005.
Decided May 25, 2005.
James E. Powell, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James E. Powell, a state prisoner, 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Powell 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