UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7242
SANDY BURGESS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General for South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CA-05-1714-MBS)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandy Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sandy Burgess seeks to appeal the district court's order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
as successive 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, 336-
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 Burgess 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 -