Addison v. Maynard

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 For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7536 PARENTHESS RICCARDO ADDISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY D. MAYNARD; CHARLES M.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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