UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6212
JIMMY WESTFALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WEST VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS; DOUGLAS
STUMP, Chairman of Board; BOB WISE, Governor,
Chief Executive Officer,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CA-02-987-2-2)
Submitted: July 7, 2003 Decided: July 28, 2003
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Westfall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Westfall seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
his petition 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). 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 Westfall has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3