Case Name: Sammie STROMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry Dargan MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-25
Citations: 163 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 05-7485
Parties: Sammie STROMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry Dargan MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Sammie STROMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry Dargan MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7485.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2006.
. a, n Sammie Stroman, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Sammie Stroman seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying reconsideration.
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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stroman 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