Court Opinion

ID: 1011643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:31:25.404443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:10.863046
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7105

MARVIN DOMINIC GREEN,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SUPREME COURT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES 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. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-4212-8-10BC)

Submitted:   September 30, 2003           Decided:   October 8, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Dominic Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Marvin Dominic Green, a state prisoner, 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,               , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Green 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