Case Name: Quintin LITTLEJOHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; Just Care Incorporated; Detention Health Care; Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-19
Citations: 126 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 04-7590
Parties: Quintin LITTLEJOHN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; Just Care Incorporated; Detention Health Care; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
Quintin LITTLEJOHN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; Just Care Incorporated; Detention Health Care; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7590.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 14, 2005.
Decided April 19, 2005.
Quintín Littlejohn, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Quintín Littlejohn seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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(e)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both 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 re viewed the record and conclude that Little-john 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