Case Name: Elmore BRAXTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WHITE, Warden, Brci; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-21
Citations: 146 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 05-6880
Parties: Elmore BRAXTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William WHITE, Warden, Brci; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 660–660

Head Matter:
Elmore BRAXTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William WHITE, Warden, Brci; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6880.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2005.
Elmore Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Elmore Braxton seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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). Braxton 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