Case Name: William Douglas DAWSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Stan BURTT, Respondent-Appellee, and Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-11
Citations: 302 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 08-7842
Parties: William Douglas DAWSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Stan BURTT, Respondent-Appellee, and Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
William Douglas DAWSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Stan BURTT, Respondent-Appellee, and Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 08-7842.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 24, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 11, 2008.
William Douglas Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Douglas Dawson 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. § 2258(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. § 2258(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 Dawson 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.