Court Opinion

ID: 1021523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:07:48.729142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:16.768076
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-6736

JAMES GUY ARNOLD,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

C. MARK HOFFE; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (3:01-cv-00011-WCB)

Submitted:   December 20, 2006             Decided:   January 8, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Guy Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            James Guy Arnold seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice

for failure to exhaust his state court remedies.         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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).        We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Arnold has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we 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

                                   - 2 -