Case Name: Stephen Roy GRATTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William M. WHITE, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-04
Citations: 211 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 06-7357
Parties: Stephen Roy GRATTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William M. WHITE, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 211
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
Stephen Roy GRATTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William M. WHITE, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 4, 2007.
Stephen Roy Gratton, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Roy Gratton seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his mandamus petition, which the district court properly construed as a successive 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 Gratton 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.