Bobby Roddy v. Evelyn Seifert, (4th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6437

BOBBY EUGENE RODDY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

DAVID BALLARD, Warden,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,

Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cv-00888)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Bobby Eugene Roddy, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roddy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Roddy's motion for appointment of counsel, 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.