Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06522/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06522-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin Plumley
Appellee
Thomas Talbert
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6522

THOMAS TALBERT,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MARVIN PLUMLEY,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-22222)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Talbert, Appellant Pro Se. Shannon Frederick Kiser, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6522 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Talbert seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 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 

Talbert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Talbert’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 16-6522 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6522 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3