Sigley v. McBride , 290 F. App'x 578 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-7162

Citation Numbers: 290 F. App'x 578

Judges: Williams, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/27/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024