Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07356/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07356-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7356

KENNY DREW SAYRE, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00061-IMK)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenny Drew Sayre, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7356 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenny Drew Sayre, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing as successive Sayre’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sayre has not

made the requisite showing. 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

Appeal: 07-7356 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 2