Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0194-01.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

Nicholas Warner JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN; M.M. Williams, the Chairman of the Maryland Parole Commission; Jane Doe, Parole Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-7926.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 27, 2003.
    Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Nicholas Warner Jones, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and dismissing it without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 § 2241 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. See Jones v. Warden, No. CA-02-3622-L (D. Md. filed Dec. 6, 2002; entered Dec. 10, 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.