Aldridge v. Wilson , 87 F. App'x 911 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7750
    ALLIE ALDRIDGE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    J.C. WILSON,
    Respondent - Appellee,
    and
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-03-62-BO)
    Submitted: February 12, 2004              Decided:   February 23, 2004
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Allie Aldridge, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Allie Bryan Aldridge appeals from the denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition by the district court.                   An appeal may
    not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding
    unless   a   circuit       judge   or   justice   issues    a    certificate       of
    appealability.       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(2000).         This court will not
    issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a
    district     court    on   procedural     grounds      unless    the    movant     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.
    2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    We have reviewed the record and determine that Aldridge
    has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003).              Accordingly, 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 in the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7750

Citation Numbers: 87 F. App'x 911

Judges: Luttig, Motz, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 2/23/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023