Case Name: Arthur Eugene GRADDICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of SC, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-24
Citations: 251 F. App'x 822
Docket Number: No. 07-6566
Parties: Arthur Eugene GRADDICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of SC, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 822–822

Head Matter:
Arthur Eugene GRADDICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of SC, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6566.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2007.
Arthur Eugene Graddick, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Eugene Graddick 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 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 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 Graddick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Graddiek'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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.