Gore v. South Carolina , 88 F. App'x 591 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7463
MICHAEL D. GORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 03-7841
MICHAEL D. GORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-03-612-8-22BI, CA-03-779-8-22BI)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Gore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael D. Gore seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and
recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his
petitions 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 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, 336
(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 in these appeals and conclude that Gore has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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
- 3 -