Case Name: Parenthess Riccardo ADDISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-24
Citations: 55 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 02-7536
Parties: Parenthess Riccardo ADDISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
Parenthess Riccardo ADDISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7536.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 24, 2003.
Parenthess Riccardo ADDISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Parenthess Riecardo Addison seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court 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)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 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 Addison has not satisfied either standard. See Addison v. Maynard, No. CA-02-85-2-24AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 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.