Case Name: Julius SMILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-16
Citations: 180 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 05-7927
Parties: Julius SMILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Julius SMILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-7927.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 26, 2006.
Decided May 16, 2006.
Julius Smiley, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Julius Smiley seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 likewise debatable. 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 Smiley 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.