UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6013
RODNEY T. CLARK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-334-2)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney T. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rodney T. Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. To be entitled to a
certificate of appealability, Clark must make "a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court dismisses on procedural
grounds, the petitioner "must 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 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). Upon independent
examination of Clark’s petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable
jurists would find it debatable whether the district court
correctly concluded the petition was untimely. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2