Case Name: Donald Lee BARRICK, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. John OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-02
Citations: 114 F. App'x 115
Docket Number: No. 04-7498
Parties: Donald Lee BARRICK, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. John OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
Donald Lee BARRICK, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. John OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7498.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 10, 2004.
Decided Dec. 2, 2004.
Donald Lee Barrick, Jr., Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Donald Lee Barrick, Jr., 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 habeas corpus 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 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 and conclude that Barrick 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