Case ID: f-appx_68/html/0500-01.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

Sidney Terry JOSHUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7051.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 10, 2003.
    Decided July 15, 2003.
    Sidney Terry Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Sidney Terry Joshua, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 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 certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a § 2254 petition is dismissed 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 magistrate judge 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 independently reviewed the record conclude that Joshua has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-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 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. 
      
      The parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in the case, including the order and entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.