UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7472
STEPHEN ROY GRATTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
CHARLIE J. CEPAK, Warden, Broad River
Correctional Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney
General, State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-01-1937-6-25AK)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: March 9, 2004
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Roy Gratton, Appellant Pro Se. Tracey Colton Green, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stephen Roy Gratton seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be
taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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, 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 Gratton 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 -