Case Name: Larry G. HARVIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-03
Citations: 98 F. App'x 946
Docket Number: No. 04-6303
Parties: Larry G. HARVIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 98
Pages: 946–947

Head Matter:
Larry G. HARVIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-6303.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 27, 2004.
Decided: June 3, 2004.
Larry G. Harvin, Appellant pro se.
Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry G. Harvin, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 Harvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Harvin's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED