Case Name: Tony Anthony PITTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Levern Cohen, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-27
Citations: 279 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 07-7328
Parties: Tony Anthony PITTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Levern Cohen, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 271–271

Head Matter:
Tony Anthony PITTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Levern Cohen, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-7328.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2008.
Decided: May 27, 2008.
Tony Anthony Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tony Anthony Pitts seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 appeal-ability. See 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. See 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 Pitts 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.