Rodney Eugene Nagye v. EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7742
RODNEY EUGENE NAGYE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden, Mount Olive
Correctional Complex,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-710-5)
Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: October 11, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Eugene Nagye, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Robert
David Goldberg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rodney Eugene Nagye seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order
is not appealable 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 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 any
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 Nagye 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 --