Case Name: Stephen Clay JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David CHESTER, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-04
Citations: 80 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 03-6647
Parties: Stephen Clay JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David CHESTER, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
Stephen Clay JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David CHESTER, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6647.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
Decided Sept. 4, 2003.
Stephen Clay Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Clay Jones, 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). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability vrill 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)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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.