Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07516/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07516-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Evelyn Seifert
Appellee
William R. Ward
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7516

WILLIAM R. WARD,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:13-cv-05312)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William R. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Scott E. Johnson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-7516 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William R. Ward 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. 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 Ward has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Ward’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-7516 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/21/2015 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: 14-7516 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3