Case Name: David Augustus GOODSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Elaine Pinson, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-08
Citations: 312 F. App'x 510
Docket Number: No. 08-6334
Parties: David Augustus GOODSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Elaine Pinson, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
David Augustus GOODSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Elaine Pinson, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-6334.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 23, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 8, 2008.
David Augustus Goodson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Augustus Goodson 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Goodson 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.