Case Name: Bruce G. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas McBRIDE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-13
Citations: 202 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 06-6295
Parties: Bruce G. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas McBRIDE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 622–622

Head Matter:
Bruce G. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas McBRIDE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-6295.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 22, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 13, 2006.
Bruce G. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bruce G. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Thomas' motion to supplement the record on appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.