Court Opinion

ID: 1012270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:42:19.274124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:05.092818
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 03-7256

DUANE H. MANNING,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-02-4062-9-25)

Submitted:   December 18, 2003             Decided:   January 15, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duane H. Manning, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             Duane H. Manning seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).                   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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Manning 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

                                    - 2 -