UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6054
EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EDSEL T. TAYLOR; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney
General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 04-6056
EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EDSEL T. TAYLOR; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney
General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-851-6-08AK)
Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 1, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation 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 Michau 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
- 3 -