Roger Bowers, Jr. v. David Ballard , 547 F. App'x 275 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6649
ROGER LEE BOWERS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00073-JPB-DJJ)
Submitted: October 31, 2013 Decided: December 3, 2013
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Lee Bowers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher S.
Dodrill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Lee Bowers, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 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)(A) (2006);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Bowers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3