¶1 Thelbert Nolan “Pete” Futrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Futrell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Futrell v. Catoe, No. CA-00-1082-M-23 (D.S.C. June 21, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). Futrell’s motion for oral argument is denied because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶2 DISMISSED.