Case Name: Thomas LOWERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; 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: 2004-01-16
Citations: 85 F. App'x 894
Docket Number: No. 03-7570
Parties: Thomas LOWERY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 894–895

Head Matter:
Thomas LOWERY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7570.
United States Cpurt of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 2003.
Decided Jan. 16, 2004.
Thomas Lowery, Appellant pro se.
Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Thomas Lowery seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the Government summary judgment and deny his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Lowery cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certifícate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue absent a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 Lowery 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