Alfred Lasure v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6520
ALFRED LASURE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General for
South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-04-944-RBH)
Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfred LaSure, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Alfred LaSure, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition 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 for claims
addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is 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 LaSure 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 of 2 --