Case Name: Edward Alvin MORTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Respondent-Appellee; Edward Alvin Morton, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. Haines, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-04
Citations: 51 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: Nos. 02-7482, 02-7544
Parties: Edward Alvin MORTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Respondent-Appellee. Edward Alvin Morton, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. Haines, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 479–479

Head Matter:
Edward Alvin MORTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Respondent-Appellee. Edward Alvin Morton, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. Haines, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 02-7482, 02-7544.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2002.
Decided Dec. 4, 2002.
Edward Alvin Morton, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward Alvin Morton, 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 taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Morton has not made the requisite showing. See Morton v. Haines, No. CA-01-41-1 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 25, 2002). Accordingly, we deny certificates of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeals. 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.
Morton filed two notices of appeal from the district court's final judgment.