
    Misty Dawn RIVERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 03-7870.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
    Misty Dawn Rivers, 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.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Misty Dawn Rivers seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 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 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 her 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rivers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also note that Rivers has raised several claims for the first time on appeal, which we decline to address. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (noting that issues raised for first time on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances). 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  