UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6625
STANLEY MARK BALLENGER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the
State of South Carolina; ROBERT H. MAUNEY,
Warden of the Northside Correctional
Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-04-1438)
Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 27, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Mark Ballenger, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stanley Mark Ballenger, 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). 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 Ballenger 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 -