Case Name: Larkland RICHARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry MCMASTER; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Warden, Trenton Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-23
Citations: 282 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 07-7662
Parties: Larkland RICHARDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry MCMASTER; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Warden, Trenton Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Larkland RICHARDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry MCMASTER; Jon Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; Warden, Trenton Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-7662.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2008.
Decided: June 23, 2008.
Larkland Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Melony Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larkland Richards seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The 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 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 Richards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.