UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6993
LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-3201-18BC-3)
Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 10, 2004
Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant
Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000),
and denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e). 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
for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As to claims dismissed by a district court
solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will
not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and
(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Hendricks has not satisfied either
standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
- 2 -
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 -