Case Name: Franklin Antonio BENJAMIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 186 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 06-6497
Parties: Franklin Antonio BENJAMIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 343–344

Head Matter:
Franklin Antonio BENJAMIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-6497.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2006.
Decided: June 21, 2006.
Franklin Antonio Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Franklin Antonio Benjamin 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 Benjamin 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.