Case Name: Rodney T. CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-17
Citations: 57 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 03-6013
Parties: Rodney T. CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
Rodney T. CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6013.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2008.
Decided March 17, 2003.
Rodney T. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Rodney T. Clark seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Clark must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court dismisses on procedural grounds, the petitioner "must 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, 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). Upon independent examination of Clark's petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court correctly concluded the petition was untimely. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, - U.S. -;, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931, 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). 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.