Court Opinion

ID: 1018293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:18:06.192769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:02.162123
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-7456

DONALD LEE TAYLOR, JR.,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CA-04-46)

Submitted: January 19, 2006                 Decided:   January 25, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Lee Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             Donald Lee Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the recommendation of a magistrate and denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).                   An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding

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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor 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 -