UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7141
LARRY B. NELSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY MAYNARD, Director of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections; CHARLES CONDON,
Attorney General for the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-
02-2487)
Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry B. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry B. Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant
Respondents’ motion for summary judgment on his petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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, 338 (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 Nelson has not made the requisite
showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
*
We find that Nelson has waived appellate review of his claims
by failing to lodge specific objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation after receiving proper notice of the consequences of
the failure to object. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46
(4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). To
the extent that Nelson attempts to raise issues in his informal
brief that were not properly presented to the district court, we
note that he cannot raise them for the first time on appeal. See
Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -