UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7051
SIDNEY TERRY JOSHUA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-02-9)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sidney Terry Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sidney Terry Joshua, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
magistrate judge’s order 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 habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a § 2254 petition is dismissed
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
magistrate judge 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, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We
have independently reviewed the record conclude that Joshua has not
made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct.
1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
*
The parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all
proceedings in the case, including the order and entry of a final
judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 73.
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3