Gaylor v. Coleman

Filing 920070207

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6547

GENE W. GAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Correctional Complex, Warden, Mt. Olive Respondent - Appellee.

No. 06-7106

GENE W. GAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Correctional Complex, Warden, Mt. Olive Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (5:02-cv-01206)

Submitted:

January 17, 2007

Decided:

February 7, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gene W. Gaylor, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Jon Rufus Blevins, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM: Gene W. Gaylor seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. not appealable unless a circuit justice or The orders are judge issues a A

certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

find

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 Gaylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeals. 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

- 3 -