Case Name: Ernest L. REARDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stanley BURTT, Warden; Henry Mcmaster, 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: 2005-05-04
Citations: 127 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 04-7913
Parties: Ernest L. REARDON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stanley BURTT, Warden; Henry Mcmaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 664–664

Head Matter:
Ernest L. REARDON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stanley BURTT, Warden; Henry Mcmaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7913.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2005.
Decided May 4, 2005.
Ernest L. Reardon, Appellant pro se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, Office of the Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Ernest L. Reardon, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 the district court's assessment of 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 Reardon 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