
    Eric Donnell SAUNDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7300.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 26, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 29, 2003.
    Eric Donnell Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Eric D. Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 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 a final order denying relief under this section 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 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 Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Saunders v. Angelone, No. CA-01-340-2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 22, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Saunders’ motion to compel the Appellee to file a brief. 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.  