McCray v. Maynard , 51 F. App'x 920 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7347
RONNIE MCCRAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GARY MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; CHARLIE
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-02-838)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 9, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronnie McCray seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a
habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of
arises out of process issued by a state court 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
for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district
court 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 and the
magistrate judge that McCray has not satisfied either standard.
See McCray v. Maynard, No. CA-02-838 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
2
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