Case Name: Randy SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard E. BAZZLE, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-23
Citations: 214 F. App'x 321
Docket Number: No. 06-7500
Parties: Randy SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Richard E. BAZZLE, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
Randy SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Richard E. BAZZLE, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-7500.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 18, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2007.
Randy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Randy Smith 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 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis miss 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.