McLester v. Sutton , 60 F. App'x 460 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6088
DAVID MARTIN MCLESTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ERNEST SUTTON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-02-78-1)
Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Martin McLester, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Martin McLester seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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 unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue from claims addressed
by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional rights.” 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.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000)), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude McLester has not satisfied either
standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL 431659,
at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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