Case Name: Richard W. STOKES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-10
Citations: 80 F. App'x 811
Docket Number: No. 03-6857
Parties: Richard W. STOKES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 811–811

Head Matter:
Richard W. STOKES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-6857.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 22, 2003.
Decided Nov. 10, 2003.
Richard W. Stokes, pro se.
Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Richard W. Stokes seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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 and conclude that Stokes 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