UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7368
CLIFTON HARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-03-2924-8-23)
Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clifton Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clifton Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and
dismissing his petition as procedurally defaulted 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 Harris has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Harris’ motion to amend his § 2254 petition,
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 -