Case Name: Dwayne Curtis DELESTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-24
Citations: 293 F. App'x 981
Docket Number: No. 08-7089
Parties: Dwayne Curtis DELESTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 293
Pages: 981–982

Head Matter:
Dwayne Curtis DELESTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-7089.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 16, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 24, 2008.
Dwayne Curtis Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Curtis Deleston 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 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debat> able 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 Deleston 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.