Case Name: Kerry GARNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-24
Citations: 69 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 03-6357
Parties: Kerry GARNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 69
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
Kerry GARNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 7, 2003.
Decided July 24, 2003.
Kerry Gamer, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kerry Garner seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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 justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garner has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED.