Case Name: Herman BAILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-23
Citations: 214 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 06-7477
Parties: Herman BAILEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
Herman BAILEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7477.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 18, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2007.
Herman Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen Warfield, Robert David Goldberg, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Herman Bailey, a state prisoner, 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 (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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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, 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir.2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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.