Case Name: Gilberto FLORES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees; Gilberto Flores, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-27
Citations: 55 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: Nos. 02-7636, 02-7637
Parties: Gilberto FLORES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees. Gilberto Flores, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Gilberto FLORES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees. Gilberto Flores, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Nos. 02-7636, 02-7637.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 27, 2003.
Gilberto Flores, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Gilberto Flores, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation construing Flores' 42 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) actions as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and dismissing them without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. The court also denied Flores' motions for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court 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 § 2241 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, 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 Flores has not made the requisite showing. See Flores v. Rushton, No. CA-01-3288-2-AJ; CA-01-3289-2-AJ (D.S.C. filed Aug. 16, 2002, entered Aug. 19, 2002; filed Sept. 11, 2002, entered Sept. 12, 2002; and filed Oct. 10, 2002, entered Oct. 11, 2002). Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.