Addison v. Maynard , 55 F. App'x 156 ( 2003 )

Filed: January 28, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7536
(CA-02-85-2-24AJ)
Parenthess Riccardo Addison,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
Gary D. Maynard, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed January 24, 2003, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is
corrected to read: “Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit
Judges.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7536
PARENTHESS RICCARDO ADDISON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY D. MAYNARD; 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 Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-02-85-2-24AJ)
Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parenthess Riccardo Addison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Parenthess Riccardo Addison 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). 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). 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)), cert.
denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and
conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Addison
has not satisfied either standard. See Addison v. Maynard, No. CA-
02-85-2-24AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4