Torries v. Bazzle , 139 F. App'x 580 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6180
RONALD P. TORRIES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden; HENRY D. MCMASTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-04-791)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald P. Torries, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant
Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronald P. Torries, Jr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge and denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) in which he claimed he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. 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 and conclude that Torries 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 -