Case Name: Dwarne HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Charlotte Correctional Institution, Punta Gorda, Florida; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-17
Citations: 53 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 02-7244
Parties: Dwarne HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Charlotte Correctional Institution, Punta Gorda, Florida; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 679–679

Head Matter:
Dwarne HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Charlotte Correctional Institution, Punta Gorda, Florida; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7244.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 25, 2002.
Decided Dec. 17, 2002.
Dwarne Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dwarne Hawkins, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Hawkins must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the movant "must 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, 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Hawkins has not made the requisite showing. See Hawkins v. Warden, No. CA-02-1548-WMN (D.Md. July 9, 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.