Case Name: James A. STAHL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-28
Citations: 275 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 07-7690
Parties: James A. STAHL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 214–214

Head Matter:
James A. STAHL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-7690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: April 28, 2008.
James A. Stahl, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James A. Stahl 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 ap-pealability 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 Stahl 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.