UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7870
MISTY DAWN RIVERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-492-8-18BI)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Misty Dawn Rivers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Misty Dawn Rivers seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on her 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 her 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 Rivers has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also note that Rivers has
raised several claims for the first time on appeal, which we
decline to address. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issues raised for first time on appeal
are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -