UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6325
CLAYTON WESLEY CARLETON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional
Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General
of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CA-02-909-4-23)
Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton Wesley Carleton, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland,
Samuel Creighton Waters, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 CURIUM:
Clayton Wesley Carleton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report 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)(1) (2000). When a district
court dismisses a habeas petition 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 a 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Carleton has not satisfied this standard.
See Mitchell-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny Carleton’s motion for transfer of custody. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the material before the court and argument
would not aid in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2