Case Name: Charles Edward AVERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-22
Citations: 141 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 05-6395, 05-6539
Parties: Charles Edward AVERY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
Charles Edward AVERY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-6395, 05-6539.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 10, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 22, 2005.
Charles Edward Avery, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In No. 05-6395, Charles Avery seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. In No. 05-6539, Avery seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(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 both 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 also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 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 Avery has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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