Court Opinion

ID: 1011137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:22:43.383774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:49.636443
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 03-6037

BOBBY RAY WILSON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-01-36-1)

Submitted:   June 30, 2003                  Decided:   July 25, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Ray Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Bobby Ray Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the report and 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,

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 (2000)), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).    We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003).    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

                                 2