UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8055
LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
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 Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge
(3:03-cv-03201-DCN)
Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. John William McIntosh,
Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney Generals, Donald
John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order 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);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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 Hendricks 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3