UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7644
CURTIS PATTERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON,
South Carolina Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-1984-9-17BG)
Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcia Gail Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Decatur,
Georgia, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney
General, Derrick K. McFarland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Curtis Patterson 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 § 2254 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 dismissed by a district
court solely on procedural grounds 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595
(2000)), cert. denied, U.S. , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have
reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
district court that Patterson has not made the requisite showing.
See Patterson v. Rushton, No. CA-01-1984-9-17BG (D.S.C. Sept. 26,
2002). See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3