Case Name: Leo L. MADDOX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director SCDC; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of SC, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-31
Citations: 70 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 03-6750
Parties: Leo L. MADDOX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director SCDC; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of SC, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 150–150

Head Matter:
Leo L. MADDOX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director SCDC; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of SC, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6750.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2003.
Decided July 31, 2003.
Leo L. Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Leo L. Maddox seeks to appeal the district court's orders adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. These orders are 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040 (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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Maddox 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.