Case Name: Bobby Ray WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-25
Citations: 70 F. App'x 118
Docket Number: No. 03-6037
Parties: Bobby Ray WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
Bobby Ray WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6037.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 30, 2003.
Decided July 25, 2003.
Bobby Ray Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bobby Ray Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 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.) (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 and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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.