Court Opinion

ID: 1021607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:09:19.093075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:39.896218
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-7477

HERMAN BAILEY,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (6:05-cv-00249)

Submitted: January 18, 2007                 Decided:   January 23, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen
Warfield, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Herman Bailey, a state prisoner, 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

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); Reid v. Angelone, 369

F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Bailey has not made the requisite showing.            Accordingly, we

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-