Maddox v. Maynard ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6750
LEO L. MADDOX,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY D. MAYNARD, Director SCDC; CHARLES
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of SC,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-
02-1053-3)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leo L. Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Leo L. Maddox seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000),
and denying his motion for reconsideration. These orders are 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,
, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Maddox 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