Case Name: Freddie DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director for South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 174 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 06-6271
Parties: Freddie DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director for South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
Freddie DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director for South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-6271.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2006.
Decided: April 10, 2006.
Freddie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Freddie Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the Respondents' motion for summary judgment and deny relief on Davis' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis 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