Court Opinion

ID: 4236040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-01-11 20:00:22.867346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:02.117268
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6975

TIMOTHY O’DELL,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

MARVIN PLUMLEY,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00073-IMK-JES)

Submitted: December 21, 2017                                      Decided: January 11, 2018

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy O’Dell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert L. Hogan, Scott E. Johnson, David A.
Stackpole, Laura Young, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Timothy O’Dell 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 O’Dell has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny O’Dell’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 materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2