Holley v. Mount Olive Correctional

Filing 920060731

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7505

RICKY MELVIN HOLLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MOUNT OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX; THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-96-2)

Submitted:

March 17, 2006

Decided:

July 31, 2006

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Byron Lees, Jr., HUNT & LEES, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Robert David Goldberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ricky Melvin Holley seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Holley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -