Case Name: Clayton ELEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-16
Citations: 100 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 03-7462
Parties: Clayton ELEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Clayton ELEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7462.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 16, 2004.
Clayton Eley, Appellant pro se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Clayton Eley seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely filed his petition 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 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.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 that Eley has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Eley's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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