Dawson v. Burtt , 302 F. App'x 214 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7842
WILLIAM DOUGLAS DAWSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN STAN BURTT,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (4:06-cv-03205-SB)
Submitted: November 24, 2008 Decided: December 11, 2008
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Douglas Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Douglas Dawson 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 Dawson 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