Case Name: Tekoa T. GLOVER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 116 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 04-7576
Parties: Tekoa T. GLOVER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 116
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
Tekoa T. GLOVER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7576.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided Dec. 1, 2004.
Tekoa T. Glover, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South .Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Tekoa T. Glover, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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, 336, 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 Glover 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