Jones v. Maynard , 53 F. App'x 293 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7515
DYSHUM MICHAEL JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY MAYNARD, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-2321)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dyshum Michael Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dyshum Michael Jones, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, 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 habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition
solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will
not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and
(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have
reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
district court that Jones has not made the requisite showing. See
Jones v. Maynard, No. CA-02-2321 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 19, 2002;
entered Sept. 20, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3