Court Opinion

ID: 1014431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:16:26.435504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:44.755621
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6593

TONY RAY ALDRIDGE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

HENRY MCMASTER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-03-2243-6-26AK)

Submitted:   September 16, 2004       Decided:   September 21, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Ray Aldridge, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Tony Aldridge, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district    court’s   order   adopting       the    recommendation    of   the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed 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

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   Aldridge   has   not     made   the   requisite   showing.

Accordingly, we deny his motions for appointment of counsel, for

the test of D.N.A. fingerprinting, and for production of documents.

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 -