Mugnano v. McBride , 158 F. App'x 426 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6627
    ANDREW MUGNANO,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Beckley.    Robert C. Chambers,
    District Judge. (CA-03-2393-5)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2005         Decided:     December 13, 2005
    Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andrew Mugnano, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Andrew Mugnano seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).              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 both that the
    district   court’s   assessment   of   his   constitutional    claims     is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
    the district court are also debatable or wrong.        See Miller-El v.
    Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (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 Mugnano
    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 before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6627

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 426

Judges: Williams, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/13/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024