UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7513
WILEY CHAPMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents - Appellees,
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-03-2462-6-26AK)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 15, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wiley Chapman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Wiley Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. 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)(A) (2000). A certificate
of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district
court 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is 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 Chapman has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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