Case Name: Marvin Dominic GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Supreme Court of South Carolina; Charles Condon, 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: 2003-10-08
Citations: 77 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 03-7105
Parties: Marvin Dominic GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Supreme Court of South Carolina; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 77
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
Marvin Dominic GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Supreme Court of South Carolina; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-7105.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 30, 2003.
Decided Oct. 8, 2003.
Marvin Dominic Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marvin Dominic Green, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and 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 § 2254 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Green 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.