Court Opinion

ID: 1016477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:49:51.70702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:06.173506
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6186

ANTHONY JOSEPH RHUE,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DOUGLAS P. TAYLOR, Warden of Ridgeland
Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General for South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-04-1399-9-27)

Submitted:   June 23, 2005                  Decided:   June 29, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Joseph Rhue, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

          Anthony Joseph Rhue seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing

his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).              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 the district court’s assessment of 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, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).      We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Rhue 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 -