Case Name: Larry G. HARVIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-03
Citations: 164 F. App'x 443
Docket Number: No. 05-7713
Parties: Larry G. HARVIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Larry G. HARVIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7713.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided Feb. 3, 2006.
Larry G. Harvin, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry G. Harvin, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 Harvin 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