Case Name: Mario Russell PIERCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E.E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-18
Citations: 90 F. App'x 38
Docket Number: No. 03-7827
Parties: Mario Russell PIERCE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E.E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 38–39

Head Matter:
Mario Russell PIERCE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E.E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7827.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 18, 2004.
Mario Russell Pierce, Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Mario Russell Pierce appeals from the magistrate judge's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(2000). This court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court or magistrate judge on procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both "(I) '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 reviewed the record and determine that Pierce 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2001).