Court Opinion

ID: 1012578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:47:07.69901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:10.861881
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 03-7324

DAVID M. CHAPMAN,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLESTON COUNTY;
CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; MAGWOOD,
Deputy Sheriff; HENRY MCMASTER,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-2511-8-18B)

Submitted:   January 30, 2004           Decided:     February 17, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           David M. Chapman, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order 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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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   both   that   his    constitutional   claims   are

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are 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 Chapman 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 -