Case Name: Bernard BAGLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-18
Citations: 131 F. App'x 922
Docket Number: No. 05-6112
Parties: Bernard BAGLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 922–923

Head Matter:
Bernard BAGLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6112.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2005.
Decided: May 18, 2005.
Bernard Bagley, Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bernard Bagley seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion in which he sought to allege a fraud on the court during his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) proceedings, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 Bagley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Bagley's motions to file a formal brief and for injunctive relief, and we deny his motion for 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