Case Name: Jerome BRADLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; 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: 2005-10-07
Citations: 144 F. App'x 995
Docket Number: No. 05-6671
Parties: Jerome BRADLEY, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 995–995

Head Matter:
Jerome BRADLEY, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6671.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.
Decided Oct. 7, 2005.
Jerome Bradley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jerome Bradley, Jr., a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336, 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 Bradley 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