Ramsey v. Smith

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6387 JOEL MARK RAMSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHARD SMITH, Warden at Tyger River Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-02-574-25-BD) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel Mark Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 CURIAM: Joel Mark Ramsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge 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 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). 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.) (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 Ramsey has not satisfied either standard. See Miller- El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 2 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 3