Case Name: Michael D. GORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees; Michael D. Gore, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-20
Citations: 88 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: Nos. 03-7463, 03-7841
Parties: Michael D. GORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees. Michael D. Gore, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
Michael D. GORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees. Michael D. Gore, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Nos. 03-7463, 03-7841.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
Decided Feb. 20, 2004.
Michael D. Gore, Appellant pro so. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
In these consolidated appeals, Michael D. Gore seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 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, 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 in these appeals and conclude that Gore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED