Case ID: f-appx_54/html/0582-02.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

John Albert WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricky HARRISON, Warden; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-7334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
    Decided Jan. 23, 2003.
    John Albert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

John Albert Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Respondents’ motion for summary judgment on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court 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.2001) (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 for the reasons stated by the district court that Williams has not satisfied either standard. See Williams v. Harrison, No. CA-01-2085 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 1, 2002 & entered Aug. 2, 2002). 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.