Court Opinion

ID: 1025048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:43:48.748349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:37.787186
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 07-7196

JAMES M. WENSELL,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00004-JPB)

Submitted:   January 24, 2008           Decided:     February 28, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. Wensell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           James    Michael   Wensell    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   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 Wensell 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 -