UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7899
JOHN S. BURDETTE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN RUSHTON; HENRY MCMASTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-04-1249-2-26)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Burdette, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, Jeffrey Alan
Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John S. Burdette, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and 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 both 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, 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 Burdette has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we 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 -