UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7008
SHALER L. EAGLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive
Correctional Complex,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CA-02-1127)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaler L. Eagle, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn
Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shaler L. Eagle, a state prisoner, 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 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 district court dismisses a § 2254 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 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 Eagle 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. 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
2