Case Name: Michael Edward KING, 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: 2002-12-04
Citations: 51 F. App'x 476
Docket Number: No. 02-7448
Parties: Michael Edward KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 476–476

Head Matter:
Michael Edward KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7448.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2002.
Decided Dec. 4, 2002.
Michael Edward King, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael King, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely filed. 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, 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, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that King has not made the requisite showing. King v. Angelone, No. CA-02-82-2 (E.D.Va. Sept. 24, 2002). 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.