Case Name: Kenneth BOZEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-06
Citations: 198 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 06-6490
Parties: Kenneth BOZEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 198
Pages: 274–274

Head Matter:
Kenneth BOZEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-6490.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 6, 2006.
Kenneth Bozeman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kenneth Bozeman 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 Bozeman 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.