UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6566
ARTHUR EUGENE GRADDICK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER,
Attorney General of the State of SC,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(9:06-cv-01404-RBH)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 24, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Eugene Graddick, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Eugene Graddick seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graddick has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Graddick’s
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 -