Case Name: Theodore SHOEMAKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, 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 912
Docket Number: No. 03-6414
Parties: Theodore SHOEMAKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 912–913

Head Matter:
Theodore SHOEMAKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6414.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 5, 2003.
Theodore Shoemaker, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Theodore Shoemaker seeks to appeal from the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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, the lower 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 Shoemaker has not satisfied this standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap pealability 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.