UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6320
CRAIG W. JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-03-1105)
Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig W. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Craig W. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order 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).
In his federal habeas petition, Jackson raised four
claims. With respect to the two claims the district court
dismissed as procedurally barred based upon the report of the
magistrate judge, we conclude that although they are not
procedurally barred, the claims are meritless. The district court
concluded that because Jackson raised these claims only in his
petition for post-conviction relief before a circuit court in South
Carolina (“PCR court”), Jackson’s claims were both unexhausted and
procedurally defaulted. While we conclude the claims were not
procedurally barred, State v. McKennedy, 559 S.E.2d 850, 852-54
- 2 -
(S.C. 2002), they were nevertheless properly subject to dismissal.
Jackson has failed to show that the state PCR court’s decision on
these claims was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,
federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or an unreasonable
application of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d).
With respect to Jackson’s remaining claims, we have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not
made the requisite showing to be entitled to a certificate of
appealability. 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 -