
    Paul Lewis RICHARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rickie HARRISON, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-7317.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 31, 2002.
    Paul Lewis Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    
      Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Paul Lewis Richards, a state prisoner, 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 to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court 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.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 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 Richards has not made the requisite showing. See Richards v. Harrison, No. CA-01-2329-3 (D.S.C. June 14, 2002). 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.  