Court Opinion

ID: 183746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-01-27 19:51:14+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:04.954844
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-7257

WILLIAM RAY TAYLOR, II,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ADRIAN HOKE, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.  John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-01302)

Submitted:   January 18, 2011             Decided:   January 27, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ray Taylor, II, Appellant Pro Se.          Robert David
Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               William Ray Taylor, II, 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     (2006)

petition.       The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge    issues     a    certificate        of   appealability.             28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).             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) (2006).                    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 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

                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3