Case Name: David Edward OSBORN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephen DOTSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-02
Citations: 51 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 02-7014
Parties: David Edward OSBORN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephen DOTSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
David Edward OSBORN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephen DOTSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7014.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2002.
Decided Dec. 2, 2002.
David Edward Osborn, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David E. Osborn, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be tak en 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, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Osborn has not made the requisite showing. See Osborn v. Dotson, No. CA-01-611-3 (E.D.Va. May 29, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Osborn's motion requesting the court to move forward with his case and to refuse further filings by Appellees. The court's ruling and Appellee's lack of filings renders this motion moot. 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.