Case Name: Tony HALLUMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON; Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-30
Citations: 144 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 05-6630
Parties: Tony HALLUMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
Tony HALLUMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6630.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2005.
Tony Hallums, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tony Hallums, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Hallums has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis miss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e) (2000). 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