Case Name: Ronnie VAUGHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-04
Citations: 96 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 03-7948
Parties: Ronnie VAUGHAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 154–154

Head Matter:
Ronnie VAUGHAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7948.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 29, 2004.
Decided May 4, 2004.
Ronnie Vaughan, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Ronnie Vaughan seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 Vaughan 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 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