Case Name: Gary SLEZAK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stanley BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of SC, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-26
Citations: 182 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 05-7253
Parties: Gary SLEZAK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stanley BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of SC, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Gary SLEZAK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stanley BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of SC, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7253.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2006.
Decided: May 26, 2006.
Gary Slezak, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gary Slezak 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 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 Slezak has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Slezak's motion for appointment of counsel, 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