Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roosevelt BRYANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-7503.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2003.
    Decided March 7, 2003.
    Roosevelt Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Roosevelt Bryant, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as time-barred.

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 mil 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Bryant fails to satisfy the first prong of the test recited in Rose. Therefore, we need not determine whether the district court’s procedural ruling that Bryant’s petition was time-barred was correct.

Bryant fails to make any argument on appeal that his § 2254 petition states a meritorious claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Bryant’s 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.