Case Name: David HARRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-19
Citations: 107 F. App'x 347
Docket Number: No. 04-6489
Parties: David HARRISON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 347–347

Head Matter:
David HARRISON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-6489.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2004.
Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
David Harrison, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Harrison seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 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 Harrison 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