Martin v. Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women , 60 F. App'x 467 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6190
DOROTHEA CHISOM MARTIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-607-7)
Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dorothea Chisom Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dorothea C. Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on her 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 unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).
When a district court dismisses a habeas 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 Martin has not made the
requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S.
Ct. 1029 (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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2