Osborn v. Dotson , 51 F. App'x 437 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7014
DAVID EDWARD OSBORN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN DOTSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-01-611-3)
Submitted: November 19, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Edward Osborn, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David E. Osborn, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order 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 Osborne has not made the requisite showing.
See Osborn v. Dotson, No. CA-01-611-3 (E.D. Va. May 29, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We also deny Osborn’s motion requesting the court to move
forward with his case and to refuse further filings by Appellees.
The court’s ruling and Appellee’s lack of filings renders this
motion moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3