Case Name: Anquan M. COBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Lieber Correctional Institution, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-06
Citations: 229 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 07-6001
Parties: Anquan M. COBB, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Lieber Correctional Institution, Warden, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
Anquan M. COBB, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Lieber Correctional Institution, Warden, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6001.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2007.
Decided: June 6, 2007.
Anquan M. Cobb, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anquan M. Cobb seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without prejudice on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The order is not appealable 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable 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 Cobb 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 con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.