Case Name: Gary Leroy HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-28
Citations: 290 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 07-7710
Parties: Gary Leroy HAYES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 290
Pages: 616–616

Head Matter:
Gary Leroy HAYES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-7710.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 28, 2008.
Gary Leroy Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gary Leroy Hayes 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 dis-positive 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 Hayes 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.