Court Opinion

ID: 1020663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:54:45.151693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:24.992568
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6295

BRUCE G. THOMAS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00046-IMK)

Submitted:   September 22, 2006           Decided:   October 13, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce G. Thomas, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Bruce G. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely 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 Thomas has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Thomas’ motion to

supplement the record on appeal, 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

                                 - 2 -