Case Name: Jimmy FAIRCLOTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-04
Citations: 65 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 03-6432
Parties: Jimmy FAIRCLOTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 65
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
Jimmy FAIRCLOTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6432.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2003.
Decided June 4, 2003.
Jimmy Faircloth, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Faircloth, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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). 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Fair-cloth has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.
To the extent Faircloth seeks to raise issues not properly presented to the district court, we find they are waived. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding claims raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances).