UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7625
MARK BRUCE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General; WILLIE E. EAGLETON,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-02-2302-4-24BH)
Submitted: March 24, 2004 Decided: April 5, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Bruce Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mark Bruce Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report
and 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 Williams 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 -