Case Name: Donnie M. SIMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary D. Maynard, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-02
Citations: 51 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 02-7245
Parties: Donnie M. SIMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary D. Maynard, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
Donnie M. SIMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Gary D. Maynard, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7245.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2002.
Decided Dec. 2, 2002.
Donnie M. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Donnie M. Simpson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An appeal may not be taken in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2241 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.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Simpson has not made the requisite showing. See Simpson v. Rushton, No. CA-01-1637-3-22BC (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2002). 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.