
    Kenneth Wayne WOODFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-6584.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 9, 2002.
    Kenneth Wayne Woodfin, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Wayne Woodfin 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 a final order denying relief under § 2254 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court 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.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge that Woodfin has not satisfied the standards under § 2253(c)(2) or Rose. See Woodfin v. Angelone, No. CA-01-417-3 (E.D. Va. April 1, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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. 
      
      
         This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parlies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
     