Case Name: Albert Lee EVANS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-30
Citations: 124 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 04-7783
Parties: Albert Lee EVANS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 207–207

Head Matter:
Albert Lee EVANS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 04-7783.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2005.
Decided: March 30, 2005.
Albert Lee Evans, Appellant pro se.
Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Albert Lee Evans, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order rejecting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans 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