Case Name: Michael HITTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HAGAN, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; South Carolina, Department of Probation Parole and Pardon, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 187 F. App'x 324
Docket Number: No. 06-6768
Parties: Michael HITTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. George HAGAN, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; South Carolina, Department of Probation Parole and Pardon, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 324–324

Head Matter:
Michael HITTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. George HAGAN, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Warden; South Carolina Department of Corrections; South Carolina, Department of Probation Parole and Pardon, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-6768.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2006.
Decided July 3, 2006.
Michael Hitter, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Hitter, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. 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 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 Hitter 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