Court Opinion

ID: 1026543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:08:07.638408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:41.704343
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 08-7162

JAMES E. SIGLEY,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00076-JPB-JSK)

Submitted:   August 21, 2008                 Decided:   August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Sigley, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy
Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 E. Sigley 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 Sigley has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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