Knight El v. Angelone , 55 F. App'x 710 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7300
ERIC DONNELL SAUNDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-01-340-2)
Submitted: November 26, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Donnell Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Eric D. Saunders 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 a final order denying relief under
this section 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 (2000)), cert. denied, 122
S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for
the reasons stated by the district court that Saunders has not made
the requisite showing. Saunders v. Angelone, No. CA-01-340-2 (E.D.
Va. Aug. 22, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Saunders’
motion to compel the Appellee to file a brief. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3