Case Name: Andre NOEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles THOMPSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-05
Citations: 61 F. App'x 910
Docket Number: No. 03-6330
Parties: Andre NOEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles THOMPSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 910–910

Head Matter:
Andre NOEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles THOMPSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6330.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 5, 2003.
Andre Noel, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Andre Noel, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order 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). When, as here, a magistrate judge dismisses a § 2254 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 magistrate judge that Noel has not made the requisite showing. See Noel v. Thompson, No. CA-02-502 (E.D.Va. Feb. 7, 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
The parties consented to proceed before a United States magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).