Case ID: f-appx_66/html/0511-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIUM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clayton Wesley CARLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional Institution; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-6325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2003.
    Decided June 17, 2003.
    Clayton Wesley Carleton, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIUM.

Clayton Wesley Carleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and denying relief 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). When a district court dismisses a habeas 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 a 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 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carleton has not satisfied this standard. See Mitchell-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Carleton’s motion for transfer of custody. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED.