Roger Paul Parsons v. WILLIAM S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7383
ROGER PAUL PARSONS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville
Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-24-2-REM)
Submitted: January 27, 2006 Decided: February 17, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James McCall Cagle, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Colleen Anne Ford, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Roger Paul Parsons, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of
the magistrate judge to deny relief on his petition filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless this
court 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 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 Parsons 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 of 2 --