Case Name: Samuel BURT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-05
Citations: 372 F. App'x 372
Docket Number: No. 09-8144
Parties: Samuel BURT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
Samuel BURT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-8144.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 5, 2010.
Samuel Burt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Burt 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 (2006) petition and order denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 that Burt 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.