Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07196/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07196-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Loy
Appellant
Evelyn Seifert
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7196

RAY LOY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

EVELYN SEIFERT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

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

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00117-IMK-JSK)

Submitted: January 30, 2015 Decided: February 10, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray Loy, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Young, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7196 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ray Loy seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the report of the magistrate judge and denying relief 

on Loy’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Loy 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 

Appeal: 14-7196 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7196 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/10/2015 Pg: 3 of 3