Case Name: Kenneth J. RAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 224 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 06-7859
Parties: Kenneth J. RAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 237–237

Head Matter:
Kenneth J. RAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7859.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 19, 2007.
Decided: April 18, 2007.
Michael F. Talley, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth J. Ray 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. § 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 Ray 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.