Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0208-01.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

Theresa Marie WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia L. HUFFMAN, Warden, F.C.C.W.; Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-6041.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 28, 2003.
    Theresa Marie Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Theresa Marie Washington, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 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 certifícate 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, 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 Washington has not made the requisite showing. See Washington v. Huffman, No. CA-02-152-3 (E.D.Va. Nov. 19, 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.