UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6647
STEPHEN CLAY JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID CHESTER, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge; William A. Webb, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-667)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Clay Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Clay Jones, 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). 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite
showing. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)
2
(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
3