Case Name: David M. CHAPMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charleston County; Charleston County Sheriff's Office; Magwood, Deputy Sheriff; Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-17
Citations: 87 F. App'x 888
Docket Number: No. 03-7324
Parties: David M. CHAPMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charleston County; Charleston County Sheriff’s Office; Magwood, Deputy Sheriff; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
David M. CHAPMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charleston County; Charleston County Sheriff’s Office; Magwood, Deputy Sheriff; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7324.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 30, 2004.
Decided Feb. 17, 2004.
David M. Chapman, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
David M. Chapman, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition 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 for claims addressed by a district court absent "a sub stantial 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are 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 and conclude that Chapman 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