Case Name: Glen WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-24
Citations: 60 F. App'x 991
Docket Number: No. 03-6371
Parties: Glen WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 991–992

Head Matter:
Glen WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6371.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2003.
Decided April 24, 2003.
Glen Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Glen Wiggins seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 a district court dismisses a habeas 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 review the record and conclude that Wiggins 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 certifícate 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.