Case Name: Donald L. STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Anthony Padula, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-06
Citations: 288 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 07-7476
Parties: Donald L. STEWART, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Anthony Padula, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents — Appel-lees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 288
Pages: 72–72

Head Matter:
Donald L. STEWART, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Anthony Padula, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents — Appel-lees.
No. 07-7476.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 16, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 6, 2008.
Donald L. Stewart, Appellant pro se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donald L. Stewart 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(e)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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 Stewart 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.