Simpson v. Rushton , 51 F. App'x 444 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7245
DONNIE M. SIMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution; GARY D. MAYNARD,
Director of South Carolina Department of
Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney
General for the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-02-1637-3-22BC)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donnie M. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donnie M. Simpson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An
appeal may not be taken 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 § 2241 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.
2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We
have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
district court that Simpson has not made the requisite showing.
See Simpson v. Rushton, No. CA-01-1637-3-22BC (D.S.C. Aug. 6,
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 presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2