Anderson v. Rushton

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7473 ALAN DWAYNE ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,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 Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-03-3430) Submitted: January 31, 2005 Decided: February 23, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam. Alan Dwayne Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alan Dwayne Anderson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 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 or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337-38 (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 Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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 -