Gaylor v. Coleman

Filing 920070207

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6547 GENE W. GAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Correctional Complex,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?