UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6432
JIMMY FAIRCLOTH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DEAN WALKER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-480-5-BR)
Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Faircloth, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Faircloth, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation
of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the
final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention
complained of arises out of process issued by a state court 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). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude Faircloth has not made the
requisite showing.* See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123
S. Ct. 1029, 1039-40 (2003). 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
*
To the extent Faircloth seeks to raise issues not properly
presented to the district court, we find they are waived. See Muth
v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding claims
raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent
exceptional circumstances).
2