Bryant v. Rushton ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7503
ROOSEVELT BRYANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution; 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. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-01-3598-9-24BG)
Submitted: February 12, 2003 Decided: March 7, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roosevelt Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Bryant, a state prisoner, 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) as time-barred.
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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have reviewed
the record and conclude that Bryant fails to satisfy the first
prong of the test recited in Rose. Therefore, we need not determine
whether the district court’s procedural ruling that Bryant’s
petition was time-barred was correct.
Bryant fails to make any argument on appeal that his § 2254
petition states a meritorious claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
2
appealability and dismiss Bryant’s 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
3