Case Name: Fred WALKER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-08
Citations: 253 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 07-6645
Parties: Fred WALKER, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 253
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
Fred WALKER, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6645.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 19, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 8, 2007.
Fred Walker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fred Walker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Walker 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.