Case Name: Joseph David MURRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Donald J. Zelenka; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-01
Citations: 204 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 06-6310
Parties: Joseph David MURRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Donald J. Zelenka; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
Joseph David MURRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Donald J. Zelenka; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-6310.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 1, 2006.
Joseph David Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph David Murray 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 appeal-able 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 Murray has not made the req uisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and iegal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.